Terrorism in London

Not only that, but if the Bible is to believed Jesus will judge the majority of humans that ever lived as sinful, and he will sentence them to eternal torment.

Okay, but to what are we disagreeing? That you misquoted Sura 2:191, 193? That the translations that I found give a completely different intepretation to those verses? That your quote leaves out Surah 2:190, 192? That these verses put the entire passage in a different context? That all of this cast serious doubts as to the credibility of your sources?To be fair, I did find a translation that is closer to yours. I can't link directly to the passage -- scroll down and select the English translation by Dr. Muhsin Khan and Dr. Muhammad Al-Hilali. Also, the verses you are quoting are clearly 2:191, 193, not 2:91,93. But the inclusion of verses 2:190 and 192 still, in my opinion, put those verses in a completely different context.Incidently, for anyone who is interested: I found what may be an interesting site. The link brings you to the same translations to which I have linked before (Shakir, Pickthall, Yusufali), but you can also choose to view commentary (by Pooya and Ali, whoever they are). (By the way, the other source for my translations also include commentary for each surah.)For fun, I have also found The Skeptic's Annotated Quran. This site promises to be hours of fun! There are also links to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and The Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon. Enjoy!Edited to add the final sentence to the penultimate paragraph.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-Jul-2005 07:02 PM

quote:

---

the vast majority of translations are as mine...

---

Wha...? How in the world can you possibly know how the "vast majority" of translations read? I really would like to see your source for this -- I don't care how credible it is, I'm just intensely interested in who would make a claim like this.-

quote:

---

...including those most cited by islamic authorities.

---

Okay, now I know that you are making this up. Islamic authorities would be using the original Arabic.Or but "Islamic authorities", do you mean the hate groups that put up the web sites that you have cited? I suppose that they are posing as "experts".-

quote:

---

On the other hand, as muslims will have to go into collective denial about their faith so that democracy can arise and peace can be had between muslims and others....

---

Well, this much, at least, we can agree on. Since Christians have largely succeeded at this task, I am sure that Muslims will be capable of it, too.And who knows? Seeing that contemporary Christianity has matured enough that many Christians are now coming out of denial and confronting the unsavory aspects of the history and origins of their religion, I am sure that one day the Muslims will be able to do so as well.

He's a troll. He just repeats the same unsubstantiated claims over and over to laugh at us as we waste our time replying to him. Sadly, I am going to reply to his last message to me anyway.

quote:

---

i don't care whether you believe me or not, and, in any event, it is clear that you won't.

---

I don't know why I should believe you when you have never given me any reason to believe you. For those who are tuning in late, this particular exchange starts with this post and use the reply links to read forward. The claim is that it is a natural part of the Islamic faith to force people into compliance, and that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity. These verses were supplied to support this claim. I will first of all note that in this list what is claimed to be Surah 2:91,93 are actually 2:191,193 -- a minor typo that has little to do with the argument.I will only mention in passing the passages in the Christian Bible ordering genocide and the murder of people worshipping pagan gods. That was brought up by other people and ignored. So much for Christianity be inherently more peaceful than Islam.I will also point out that many of the verses cited in the post were of the "God hates idolators" and "unbelievers will burn in Hell" type -- which are also found in the Christian Bible. Why these particular verses portray Islam as more prone to violence than Christianity when Christianity also has the same verses I don't understand -- CanadianSteve has chosen not to comment on this.CanadianSteve quotes 2:191,193 to show that Muslims are ordered to make war on unbelievers. I supplied translations to these verses that are completely different than what he supplied. Strangely (but not so strange -- it does seem to fit a pattern), CanadianSteve never mentioned these verses again, again ignoring an inconvenient fact. That is, until I found a translation that matches his, and I brought it up. Suddenly, CanadianSteve's interest in these verses is renewed -- my conclusion to this is that if a something is not on frontpage or CanadianSteve's other hate-group sources then he has no idea what to do. At any rate, he then claims that his translation is the majority of translations without explaining how he knows this or supplying any reference to this, and he claims that the majority of Islamic authorities agree with this translation without telling us who these authorities are or why we should believe that they represent the majority.But this is not all. CandadianSteve's quotation of 2:191,193 leaves out 2:190,192. When 2:190-193 are read together, it is clear that this passage is speaking of a defensive war. Even in the worst possible translation basically says, "Don't start a war yourself, but if someone insists on a fight annihilate them completely." This is quite a bit different than the misquoted portion which seems to say, "Fight the pagans and annihilate them completely." CanadianSteve has never explained why his source quotes 1:191,193 without including 2:190,192 which are crucial in understanding the passage.Finally, I discussed Surah 9. Surah 9 talks of breaking a treaty with the pagans and fighting them until none of them are left. It also mentions that prisoners of war must not be mistreated until they have an oppurtunity to hear of Islam and convert, in which case they are to be freed (say -- I wonder if the prisoners at Gitmo have that opportunity?), but that is not entirely relevant here. Again, what is missing is the context of this Surah. I explained (and found sources to back this up) that this Surah was "revealed" at the time of the battle of Makkah. There was a treaty of peace between the pagans and the Muslims, but the pagans were violating the treaty and endangering the Muslim community. This passage was to reassure the Muslims that breaking the treaty would not be wrong on their part, and that a war to eliminate the threat is justified. Far from being a passage that advocates war as a means of conversion, it makes the sensible provision that one is not bound to honor a treaty that the other side is not honoring. CanadianSteve, again, does not say anything about this commentary -- presumably because his sources do not mention this commentary and he hasn't had time to make something up himself.Incidently, for those who tuned in late and don't want to read the previous posts can find the translations I have used and their commentary at this link.

Hello, Tal. You appear not to have read the previous posts in this thread -- not that I blame you since it has gotten a little long. However, holmes' post, to which you are responding, is one in a rather lengthy argument on a very specific point. The claim being considered is whether Islam itself is inherently a violent religion, and, in particular, whether it is by its nature more violent that Christianity. The majority of your post is irrelevant to this point.The only point that is remotely relevant is your citing a Muslim spokesman as saying that Islam considers civilians to be a fair target in war. Holmes has already pointed out that this one person does not necessarily speak for the majority of Muslims; this one person's opinon does not demonstrate the Islam is, by its nature, a violent religion unless you can show that his opinion is indeed the natural conclusion from the precepts of Islam as well as showing that the opposite opinion, that civilians should not be targeted in a war, is not also a natural conclusion from the precepts of Islam.But I also want to bring up two additional points. One is a purely semantic issue. The comment that civilians are a legitimate target in war is not necessarily advocating violence. It is perfectly logical for someone who advocates peace to say, "War is bad, war is to be avoided, one should not begin hostilities. However, if it is necessary to go to war, one has to do what one must to win, even if it involves purposely targeting civilians." You and I may disagree with that statement, however someone may make that statement and still be sincerely interested in maintaining friendly, peaceful relations with anyone else who is also interested in peace.Finally, the targeting of civilians is certainly not confined to Islam. Certainly any modern military's concern to avoid civilian casualties seem more to do with the presence of TV cameras than any Christian or Western values on the sanctity of civilian lives. At any rate the colonial expansion of the Christian Europeans into Africa and Asia, as well as the Christian Americans' colonial expansion into western North America, are filled with atrocities committed against women and children and other noncombatants, so clearly concern over the safety of civilians is not a principle that can be used to distinguish between Islam and Christianity.Edited to correct a few typos.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 12-Jul-2005 07:18 PM

quote:

---

Mr. Cook's erudite and timely study has many implications, including these:

​

* The current understanding of jihad is more extreme than at any prior time in Islamic history.
* This extremism suggests that the Muslim world is going through a phase, one that must be endured and overcome, comparable to analogously horrid periods in Germany, Russia, and China.
* Jihad having evolved steadily until now, doubtless will continue to do so in the future.
* The excessive form of jihad currently practiced by Al-Qaeda and others could, Mr. Cook semi-predicts, lead to its "decisive rejection" by a majority of Muslims. Jihad then could turn into a non-violent concept.

---

I see nothing fundamentally wrong with these three conclusions, although I have some doubts about the fourth.But the quoted passage from Cook also suggests another implication. As I read Cook's passage, I notice that he seems to draw a picture of jihad as an expression of resistance against invasion, conquest, and imperialism. This is consistent with what was said at the beginning of this thread concerning the invasion of Iraq. By being seen as another example of Western imperialism, the invasion of Iraq further strengthens the Islamic extremists and hardens public opinion against the US.This is a poll taken by the Pew Research Center about a year ago. It indicates widespread skepticism concerning the US invasion of Iraq in the Arab world, as well as significant support of Osama bin Laden. A poll taken by Zogby also links anger at the US with the invasion of Iraq. I couldn't find anything more recent -- here's a VOA report on a more recent poll, although I couldn't find more details on Pew's website.Interestingly, the Center for Strategic and International Studies reports on a poll taken by Terror Free Tomorrow that shows that public opinion in Indonesia has improved in the aftermath of US aid in response to the tsunami last January. So it appears that a genuinely helpful hand really can influence people; however the CSIS warns I think that all of this has implications on how we should deal with the Islamicists. Overt military action is counter-productive, while aid that truly helps the needy can have a great positive effect.

quote:

---

Cook says, in fact, as do most other islamic and non islamic scholars that:
'"Throughout history and at present... the term (Jihad) primarily means "warfare with spiritual significance."' That is war, plain and simple.

---

The definition of the word jihad has no relevance to anything in my post, nor to any of my other posts. I can't figure out whether you are trying to change the subject or whether you have a problem with logic.-

quote:

---

As for iraq, the people are on side with the Americans.

---

That is very different from any I have ever read on Iraq. About a year ago, Christian Parenti wrote an article detailing anti-American sentiment among Iraqis. In an article published just before the Iraqi elections in January, David Enders also that the American occupation was unpopular. Sami Ramadani has recently written: And Frank Brodhead has written: The occupation is simply not popular in Iraq. But perhaps you have more accurate information than I?

quote:

---

You then go on to say that this relates to Iraq.

---

Actually, what I meant to say is that the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East is far more the result of imperial domination by the West (continuing presently under the guise of the "War of on Terror") than it is a fundamental tenet of Islam. The very quotes that you selected seem to confirm this. Sorry I wasn't clear on this point.My comments on Iraq were to point out that I have never read anything about the US invasion being popular -- quite the contrary, the US occupation continues to be very unpopular, and the people want the foreign troops quickly.Neither this post nor the next one really deals with either of these points.Added an acknowledgement that my previous post wasn't clear.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 13-Jul-2005 02:54 PM

quote:

---

If one reads the liberal press strictly, one will not at all get the impression that the democracy the US is introducing is popular.

---

It's interesting how anyone who presents bad news gets labelled "the liberal press" with all the implications of bias if not outright misrepresentation.-

quote:

---

But if you read iraqi bloggers, as I have, if one reads iraqi papers (some are trnaslated), as I have, read other press, as i do, one gets a very different picture.

---

I found an interesting article about freedom of the press in Iraq. I wonder if government repression would have an effect on what Iraqi newspapers say and on how they say it?Edited to add the following:My apologies. Although I was able to read the above article directly, the link on EvC seems to bring you to a registration page.Here is another article from the Committee to Protect Journalists.At any rate, the very first Iraqi newspaper that a google search turned up was Azzaman. I don't know much about that newspaper, but the articles and opinions expressed are anything but positive of the occupation. Could your sources be somewhat selective of the newspapers they quote?-

quote:

---

So, sure, they want the US out...kind of.

---

In the context of the articles I cited, it's pretty hard to say "kind of". The occupation really seems pretty unpopular among Iraqis.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 13-Jul-2005 04:35 PM

quote:

---

The liberal press is denoted by the MSM, as discussed by Bernard Goldberg, a former key CBS exec who has been writing extensively about its biased agenda.

---

And yet, despite this clear bias, you have not been able to show how the articles I cited were inaccurate.-

quote:

---

Theer are dozens of papers in Iraq. the only ones suppressed are islamist papers.

---

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that CanadianSteve's usual response is to just say, "No it isn't!"-

quote:

---

If you care to do a complete investigation, you will find a huge muber of sources that contradict your selective ones.

---

I don't claim to have done a complete investigation, but I found what I found through a pretty simple google search. None of the responses returned said anything about popular support in Iraq for the occupation. Perhaps Google is part of the biased liberal media?--

quote:

---

And , again, consider that 8 million iraqis defied the isalmists to vote. that says it all.

---

Indeed. I think that the fact that the US supported coalition was defeated in the election, and that the parties that won have been critical of the occupation pretty much defeats your argument.A Washington Post article has an analysis of the election: I will give credit where credit is due, though. I expected the US occupation to rig the elections. It is clear that they didn't.-

quote:

---

Your nation is in the process of creating a miracle....

---

Yes, indeed! Weapons of mass destruction disappear as if they were never there to begin with! A tenacious armed resistance appears among a joyous pro-American population as if by magic! This administration is certainly capable of miracles!-

quote:

---

...A democratic revolution will sweep an entire region of the globe, bringing peace to us all.

---

Heh. Not if this administration has any say in the matter.Edited to correct a typo.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 13-Jul-2005 05:33 PM

CanadianSteve is certainly positive that this is going to happen, isn't he, Ned? It is refreshing to see a conspiracy theorist that is optimistic.But how long do you think it will take before he begins to blame the subversives and the "fifth column" on the home front for the continued failure in the Mideast?Or do you think that this will be like the return of Jesus -- for the next two thousand years democracy will continually be just around the corner?