Monday, February 26, 2007

My Interpretations of the Quran #1

Just a note: I intend on making more parts for this pending comments from people and my own free time I'll have, remember I'm still a uni student who dreams of learning Japanese and working at Nintendo :-P so yeah, I do have dreams I'd like to fulfill someday and I can't do that by blogging all day long :-)

Islam is a tough religion, it gives harsh penalties but promises great rewards. To that end verses in the Quran might sound harsh, and often times they are harsh especially when looking at them with a pre-emptive bias against it from all the bad a person may have heard about it.



Afraid?

I’ll be taking verses from the video and showing how they are misleading, at the very least I’ll show you how they should be interpreted versus how most people think they are interpreted. In Islam peace is the only way up until the point others start trying to take away your religion from you, then its war. This is the pre-cursor to all violence in Islam, one cannot start an act of violence against non-Muslims unless there is a clear and present danger towards Muslims. Even then the enemy has to be clear and defined because Allah warns Muslims will be held accountable should they attack non-Believers who are not a part of a war against Muslims.

Whatever is written in the Quran does not supersede this fundamental, where there is peace between believers and non-Believers it is a sin for a Muslim to attempt to break that peace. This has been demonstrated countless times in history, however a lot of people purposely skew facts to meet their own ends as such this post is not about the history of Islam. It is about showing people how verses from the Quran can be deliberately misinterpreted.

There aren’t many such resources online and I feel somewhat pressured to create this post, as such I don’t claim this to be the 100% true interpretations of the Quran but the inaccuracies are not deliberate nor would fixing any minor mistake drastically change the general meaning of the interpretation. I am not a scholar in anyway for my religion, I can't even speak Arabic, however I am a Muslim and I follow Islam while believing 100% in my heart that it is the truth. To that end I do not compromise on my religion and am very well prepared to leave my country (Australia) if I am restricted from practicing my religion in any significant way.

One last thing before I start, many of the verses on the video seem to be giving the bare minimum English translation of the Arabic verses. Arabic is more complex than English so it is actually impossible to have a straight English translation, however the video above has taken out bracketed parts that attempt to explain in English what certain words mean or are meant to imply. Given Arabic grammar and words often lack their English counterparts from a grammatical perspective or simply the word doesn’t exist in English.

To begin

Verse 2:6 From Video:
“Don’t Bother to Warn the Disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom.”
More Accurate English Interpretation:
“Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe”

I don’t see how this is implying anything bad upon non-Believers besides their inherent ignorance, there are those who disbelieve who will never believe in Islam. I know there are many such people out there who will never want to believe in Islam, what Allah is asking of believers is to simply not pressure them to change beliefs, even Muhammad cannot change their beliefs.

So basically in Islam it is not acceptable to go door to door knocking trying to convince people to convert to Islam. Allah says no matter how hard you press non-believers will never convert to Islam, it is their choice, if they come and ask a Muslim explains about Islam then you can explain to them all about it otherwise it is not a Muslims business trying to force Islam onto others.

Verse 2:10 From Video:
"Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie."
More Accurate English Interpretation:
"In their hearts is a disease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies"
Lies? Well this verse is not refering to all disblievers, it is referring to those who believe in a heaven and hell but who have lied to themselves, from verse 6:8:
"And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: "We beieve in Allah and the Last Day" while in fact they believe not""

Muhammad Has said that those who are the greatest threat to Islam are those who claim to believe but who disbelieve (i.e. hypocrites). They are liars and Allah has sealed their fate. So verse 2:10 is referring to those who claim to be Muslim but are not.

If there is anything here that is advocating war against these hypocrites I clearly can't see it, Allah only says that he has sealed the hearts and prepared a punishment for hypocrites. This is the passing of justice of Allah upon these people, if Allah seems to punish hypocrites hard then I totally agree with you, if you think Allah is asking Muslims to kill hypocrites or any such thing I ask you to re-read the verses and point out where exactly.

Verse 2:24 From the Video:
"A fire has been prepared for the disbielvers, whose fuel is men and stones."
More Accurate English Interpretation:
"But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers"
By 'you do it not' it is referring to verse 2:23:
"And if you (Arab pagans, Jews and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which we have sent down (i.e. the Quran) to Our slave (Muhammad) then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful."
This is essentially saying that if you do not believe in the Quran then you should produce a single chapter to compete with the Quran and call your people (witnesses etc) to debate with Allah on it, if you are truthful.

Back to the first, it is saying but if you do not do such a thing and you cannot infact replicate the Quran then you should fear hell whose fuel is men and stone. This is essentially a call for those who disbelieve to convert to Islam, since they cannot create a text equivalent of the Quran (more on that later) they should not try to do as such and simply fear the hell fire and convert to Islam to avoid it.

By a text equivalent we are referring to an extremely complex piece of literature that bares no inconsistencies. This point is somewhat moot in terms of disproving Islam, since you will need a person who is completely unbiased in everyway possible to judge this piece of literature non-believers may create it would be impossible to verify unless god himself looked upon this literature, being almighty and perfect he will make that decision. He invites people to attempt it and says they cannot, so simply he's saying don't try to replicate Islam or create a religion, because you cannot, fear hell fire and convert to Islam.

Once again I cannot see anywhere in this verse the advocacy of violence against non-believers. Yes, again the verses are strong but there is nothing in them that asks Muslims on planet earth to attack non-believers.



In my next post on this matter I will be explaining verses 2:190, 2:244 and 2:178.

Remember once again I'm not a scholar on this subject matter but I am a Muslim and I can read. What I write here are my opinions however I'm sure they reflect off on the majority 1.2 billion other Muslims in existence.

27 comments:

Gharqad said...

A few questions for you, as a moderate Muslim:

Is there a religious duty in Islam to establish a caliphate to rule the Muslims?

How can Islam be compatible with democracy when the shariah of the Quran is the supreme law?

What does the Quran teach about a Muslim who becomes an apostate and changes his deen?

Anonymous said...

I would also like to ask why, as a 'keeper of the book', muslims don't follow the book?

I mean, if you're gonna keep it, defend it and protect it, you might as well read it also, right?

The TaNak and the NT. They're both very clear.

Jesus was very clear on who He was. And Revelation? Oh yeah, it warned at the end that if anyone came later to add anything to this book or retract from it, they would be cursed... and yet...

So, are we a 'keeper of the book' or just pretending to be one?

Was Jesus just a prophet? Or was He what the New Testament said?

Are we going 'to keep' those parts of the book that support our view and 'not keep' the other parts that don't?

Why not just be a 'keeper of the book' for real and not just use a well-worn cliche?

Either we are truly a 'keeper of the book' or we're not. Because The Book, in order to really keep it, one must follow what's in it. Otherwise, why 'keep' a lie?

Or, we could reject that logic and just keep saying that we're 'keepers of the book'. Easier that way I suppose.

Anonymous said...

strange you never posted verse 9.5.

Ahmed said...

@gharaqad

First if you're lableling me as a moderate muslim please don't, I'm not so into the 'moderate' or 'extremist' lableing crap, if anything just call me an extremist and see how evil I am ;-)

Yes it is a religous duty in Islam to try to establish a proper homeland for all Muslims to live in safe from persecution.

Depends under what context, if this person changes his religion to simply cause problems amongst people then he would be executed, otherwise he would be free to leave.

@anon

I am trying to read it aren't I?

And I follow it down to the last letter. I don't see your point anon, sorry.

@anon talking about verse 9:5

Sorry I can't do them all in one go, I will get to 9:5 eventually, if you would really like I could do 9:5 in my next one :-)

gharqad said...

ahmed said...

First if you're labeling me as a moderate muslim please don't, I'm not so into the 'moderate' or 'extremist' lableing crap, if anything just call me an extremist and see how evil I am ;-)

Well, I don't mean to insult you. :)

Yes it is a religous duty in Islam to try to establish a proper homeland for all Muslims to live in safe from persecution.

I notice you skipped my question about whether Islam can be compatible with democracy. But your answer about the duty to establish a caliphate kind of deals with that as well.

Now if a proper homeland to keep the Muslims safe from persecution can only be had under the protection of the caliph, where should this homeland be established?

Depends under what context, if this person changes his religion to simply cause problems amongst people then he would be executed, otherwise he would be free to leave.

Free to leave the Dar al Islam, or free to leave Islam in the sense of being permitted to change his religion?

Ahmed said...

@gharqad

Thats alright, I just don't like being labeled as a moderate Muslim, like I'm sacrificing parts of my religion.


Islam can be compatible with democracy under certain circumstances, for instance I live in Australia, it is not a predominantely Muslim country however I am given the freedom to be a Muslim. Hence here in Australia Islam and Democracy can and do co-exist.

If by Islam is compatible with democracy you mean an Islamic Democratic country, well it wouldn't be ideal but there is nothing against shariah laws that specify that a democratic Islamic nation is evil. Shariah law does have a specific form of government that is ideal however it is not the be all end all.


If a Muslim stops believing in Islam he is free to go, no one can attack him or anything unless he is trying to use his decision to gain political power or to try to seperate Muslims apart from each other in some form (i.e. breaking peace).

I can tell you for a fact I have a relative who converted to a shiite in a sunni majority area, now let me tell you that shiite's are one of the biggest enemies of Muslims (historicaly speaking) however this man changed to that line of belief so he could marry this woman in a sunni dominated part of Iraq. He's still living there right now. Thats just a first hand example, thats the way it is supposed to be anyhow, so long as he keeps to himself and doesn't try to start a war with the Muslims in that area (or any area for that matter).

gharqad said...

ahmed said...

If a Muslim stops believing in Islam he is free to go, no one can attack him or anything unless he is trying to use his decision to gain political power or to try to seperate Muslims apart from each other in some form (i.e. breaking peace).

Presumably "breaking peace" would include criticizing Islam, or trying to convince others to leave Islam?

I notice you say that you consider the Shia to be enemies of the Muslims. Yet they are tolerated on the Hajj, are they not? (I wasn't clear what you meant by that last paragraph, as it would seem to make more sense for a Shia to convert to Sunni in a majority Sunni area. Perhaps you misspoke?)

As for the caliphate, you write

If by Islam is compatible with democracy you mean an Islamic Democratic country, well it wouldn't be ideal but there is nothing against shariah laws that specify that a democratic Islamic nation is evil. Shariah law does have a specific form of government that is ideal however it is not the be all end all.

What is an ideal if not the objective or standard against which to measure? The ideal should be by definition the "be all end all," because once you have achieved the ideal, why would you settle for less?

Ahmed said...

You see it's assumptions like these that I hate..

Breaking the peace is not about saying what you want it is you start attacking groups verbally trying to turn the community in on itself, thats breaking peace. This is especailly looked down upon if a Muslim tries to break peace between muslims and non-muslims living together, technically it is punishable by death but western laws just put them in jails sometimes.

Shia's are the enemy of Muslims, they have been for as long as they have been in existence, no, a Muslim converted to a shia in a Muslim dominated part of Iraq, he's still there with this wife, no ones touched him. No one likes what he done but thats another story altogether, it doesn't give you the authority to attack him.

As for them being tolerated during Hajj, I personally wouldn't, they aren't Muslims, they have a history of double crossing Muslims, they have really crazy beliefs that goes against Islamic teachings (beating oneself, cut the head), they even claim Muhammad isn't the messenger of god but Ali is. The Muslim shahada says Muhammad is the last prophet of Allah, not Ali, hence on that alone they aren't classified as Muslims.

It's all about workability (in terms of government), while there is an ideal form of government it cannot always be created, heck, even democracy is an ideal form of government in many peoples views yet they know they can't achieve it as ideal.

Yes, in Islam we have the ideal government that we should try to create, a government where there is a single leader of all Muslims and advisor's representing their fields (a teacher for education etc). It's something like that but besides the point.

It isn't workable, not even if you start a country from scratch. If you look at it throughout history Islamic governments have changed in structure over time, for better or for worse, either way it was because the ideal government could not be created for various political issues etc.

Anonymous said...

@anon

I am trying to read it aren't I?

And I follow it down to the last letter. I don't see your point anon, sorry.


So, you're a Christian then.

If you're going to be a 'keeper of the book', then also try keeping the passages as they are written.

Jesus said who He was.

This is very clear.

You either keep the TaNaK and the NT or you don't keep, them.

Again, be a real 'keeper of the book'.

First, read it.

You can certainly reject it afterwards, but don't then claim that you simulataneously share in same faith as the prophets and the law of Moses and the fullfillment of that in Jesus Christ.

You are either a keeper of the book or a rejecter of the book.

One cannot be both.

It is simply pretentious to parrot cliches that have no meaning.

Investigate your Bible. It is incompatible with the koran.

And the koran?

It reads like a grand theft auto chop shop. It plagiarizes and pieces out Biblical snippets and resells them on the black market.

Abraham a contemorary of Moses?

Please.

That kind of scholarship has no weight.

Not trying to demean, but the truth must be respected first.

Gharqad said...

ahmed said...

You see it's assumptions like these that I hate..

Well, that's why I'm asking. To clarify my assumptions.

Breaking the peace is not about saying what you want it is you start attacking groups verbally trying to turn the community in on itself, thats breaking peace. This is especailly looked down upon if a Muslim tries to break peace between muslims and non-muslims living together, technically it is punishable by death but western laws just put them in jails sometimes.

So the Muslims that consider bombing or attacking the kuffar in their countries are not acting in accordance with the principle if jihad (defending Islam)?

Shia's are the enemy of Muslims, they have been for as long as they have been in existence, no, a Muslim converted to a shia in a Muslim dominated part of Iraq, he's still there with this wife, no ones touched him. No one likes what he done but thats another story altogether, it doesn't give you the authority to attack him.


Oh, now I see what you mean. The spread of Shiism must concern you, especially where the U.S. is setting up another predominately Shia state in Iraq.

As for them being tolerated during Hajj, I personally wouldn't, they aren't Muslims, they have a history of double crossing Muslims, they have really crazy beliefs that goes against Islamic teachings (beating oneself, cut the head), they even claim Muhammad isn't the messenger of god but Ali is. The Muslim shahada says Muhammad is the last prophet of Allah, not Ali, hence on that alone they aren't classified as Muslims.

That makes the Shia the same or worse than the kuffar, I'd think.

It's all about workability (in terms of government), while there is an ideal form of government it cannot always be created, heck, even democracy is an ideal form of government in many peoples views yet they know they can't achieve it as ideal.

Yes, in Islam we have the ideal government that we should try to create, a government where there is a single leader of all Muslims and advisor's representing their fields (a teacher for education etc). It's something like that but besides the point.

It isn't workable, not even if you start a country from scratch. If you look at it throughout history Islamic governments have changed in structure over time, for better or for worse, either way it was because the ideal government could not be created for various political issues etc.


But it's in the Quran, and is a religious duty to try to establish, as you said. Why would there be an obligation imposed upon the Muslims in the Quran that is impossible to achieve?

Ahmed said...

Gharqad, no thats not acceptable, attacking people who are not at war with you and killing innocent people who are not partaking in war is forbidden in Islam and is punishable by death.

The US doesn't want to set up a shia regime in Iraq, they want to setup a regime that will obey them like a puppy dog, neither the Muslims or the shia's will do that, least of all Muslims however shia's are willing to suck up to the US for a few bones. I'm sorry if I sound really hateful towards them but some of the things they do in the name of MY religion makes my blood boil. Bare in mind there are a lot of people like that, but they are the single largest group. The fact they beat and cut themselves should be more than enough of a reason for me to try to distance myself from them and fear they ever gain any power in Iraq.

Couple that with the fact they go out of their way to kill Muslims every chance they get (believe what you want, I have relatives over there) like savage dogs. My cousin was almost killed in their hands once because of his name.

It is not an obligation that is 'impossible to achieve', it is an obligation that cannot be achieved in this political climate. It can happen, but it won't happen overnight and it won't happen the way things are going.

First things first, get rid of the tyranical dictators controlling people in the Middle Eastern countries, set yourself up an ideal leader and go from there. As you probably know we have a long way to go before there is stabiulity in the middle east let alone starting a peaceful country under Muslim rule. Another thing Islam makes obligatory is to travel to go for Hajj atleast once in your lifetime, however if it cannot be done (for just reason of course) then you are not held accountable to it.

Gharqad said...

ahmed said...

Gharqad, no that's not acceptable, attacking people who are not at war with you and killing innocent people who are not partaking in war is forbidden in Islam and is punishable by death.

What about the Jews? Are the attacks by Palestinians against Israelis justifiable, as some Palestinians say, because of Israeli occupation of Muslim land, including their claim to the Haram al Sharif? Or is that different?

I'm sorry if I sound really hateful towards [the Shia] but some of the things they do in the name of MY religion makes my blood boil. Bear in mind there are a lot of people like that, but they are the single largest group. The fact they beat and cut themselves should be more than enough of a reason for me to try to distance myself from them and fear they ever gain any power in Iraq.

Couple that with the fact they go out of their way to kill Muslims every chance they get (believe what you want, I have relatives over there) like savage dogs. My cousin was almost killed in their hands once because of his name.


I don't doubt it. The takfiri and the Iranians have been going out of their way to cause civil war in Iraq.

[The obligation to create the caliphate] is not an obligation that is 'impossible to achieve', it is an obligation that cannot be achieved in this political climate. It can happen, but it won't happen overnight and it won't happen the way things are going.

First things first, get rid of the tyranical dictators controlling people in the Middle Eastern countries, set yourself up an ideal leader and go from there. As you probably know we have a long way to go before there is stability in the middle east let alone starting a peaceful country under Muslim rule. Another thing Islam makes obligatory is to travel to go for Hajj at least once in your lifetime, however if it cannot be done (for just reason of course) then you are not held accountable to it.


Well, I was aware that there are exceptions concerning the Hajj if one is really unable. But that's an obligation on the individual Muslim, rather than the ummah, so there can be exceptions for individual circumstances. As one cannot create the caliphate by oneself, there's no need for an individual exception for that obligation.

But your explanation makes sense. Until the Muslims can change the political circumstances, the caliphate cannot be achieved. Would you include the al-Saud dynasty among the tyrannical dictators that must be changed?

Anonymous said...

Zindiq- you are playing with fire. Stay safe. Love, Sharmuta

Ahmed said...

@Gharadaq

I can't speak on behalf of other people, I'm speaking on behalf of my religion. However having said that it is their right to fight for their land, I can't say I agree or disagree with their methods because I'm not living there to have a proper unbiased opinion on the matter.

Every tyrannical dictatorship that oppresses its people is not Islamic, while I already mentioned there is no specific form of government that must be made in Islam there are certain things the Government will have to adhere to, not the least of which it will have to have an open communication with the people under it. Obviously this is not something that happens in a dictatorship



@Anonymous

Sorry to burst your bubble but the fact I'm posting verses within context and explaining them thoroughly in no way means I am at all in the slightest compromising on my religion.

Gharqad said...

ahmed said...

I can't speak on behalf of other people [the Palestinians], I'm speaking on behalf of my religion. However having said that it is their right to fight for their land, I can't say I agree or disagree with their methods because I'm not living there to have a proper unbiased opinion on the matter.

Well, I'm not asking you to speak for the Palestinians, I'm asking whether you think their methods of using suicide bombers to blow up Israeli civilians in pizza parlors and buses can be justified under Islam, when you earlier said that "killing innocent people who are not partaking in war is forbidden in Islam and is punishable by death." Your answer, saying that you can't agree or disagree without living under those circumstances, leads me to believe that you may not have a problem with that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're upset at what Shiite death squads are doing to your Sunni brothers in Iraq, killing Sunni civilians just because of their names when they're only trying to make a living, I ask you to consider whether Palestinians killing civilians in Israel can be justified under Islam. If there's a difference there for you, consider then whether the bombers of civilian commuters on subway trains in Spain find justification for their actions in Islam, because much of the country of Spain was once part of the Muslim lands.

I've appreciated your candor and patience in answering my questions, by the way. If you have any questions for me, I'll be glad to try to answer them.

Ahmed said...

If they are going and killing random people at Pizza parlors then they are not acting in accordance to Islam.

It's simple as that really.

Gharqad said...

Ahmed said...

If they are going and killing random people at Pizza parlors then they are not acting in accordance to Islam.

It's simple as that really.


Glad to hear that.

Even Yasser Arafat was embarrassed by the glorification of such an attack. (At least he was once Westerners complained about the "art exhibit" staged by Hamas students one month after the actual suicide bombing that killed 15 people.)

Ahmed said...

Well thats the problem, there are these few small political groups that do all this and cover up their moral hides with illusions that what they are doing is sanctioned. The problem is people like these are the equal and opposite of the other side who are doing the same thing.

The problem is innocent people get caught in the crossfire

Gharqad said...

ahmed said...

Well thats the problem, there are these few small political groups that do all this and cover up their moral hides with illusions that what they are doing is sanctioned.

I wouldn't exactly call Hamas a "small political group." They're essentially the elected government of the Palestinians. And Article Seven of the Hamas charter includes a certain famous hadith (Sahih Muslim 41:6985):

"The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)."

I'm not Jewish, but I borrowed the name. :)


The problem is people like these are the equal and opposite of the other side who are doing the same thing.

That seems to be an attempt to justify suicide bombing. And if there has been a systematic campaign on the part of Israelis deliberately targeting civilians using suicide bombing of restaurants and buses, I'd be surprised to hear it. If you claim that there are groups on the other side doing "the same thing" I'll be interested to see the evidence of this.

The problem is innocent people get caught in the crossfire.

The problem is, in some respects, that people like yourself who believe that what certain people are doing in the name of Islam is wrong, and contrary to your faith, are often afraid to speak out against it, because after all, these guys are fanatical and violent, and one takes a risk in the community by criticizing them. I can see why you didn't want me calling you a "moderate," because that would imply that these people are in fact Muslims, and are defining what it is to be faithful.

Ahmed said...

Hammas is a corrupt political group, like all the rest, even Saddam was elected in, wel his party was, after which he took over.

It's all corruption.


Umm, since when was I trying to justify suicide bombings? I just made mention of the fact both sides have political agenda's they are trying to push forward in any number of ways and what is happening is innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire. I think it's an exact opposite of trying to justify that.

The other side has a habit of firing rockets from helicopters into heavily populated areas.


The thing is I'm not a moderate, I'm an extremist, but I don't purpously misinterpret the Quran to achieve political ends. I'm not afraid of being critical of them, I'm just afraid of saying something inaccurate which is why I try to be as hypothetical as possible. If it isn't you, it will be someone else who'll twist what I have to say one way or another.

Gharqad said...

ahmed said...

The thing is I'm not a moderate, I'm an extremist, but I don't purposely misinterpret the Quran to achieve political ends. I'm not afraid of being critical of them, I'm just afraid of saying something inaccurate which is why I try to be as hypothetical as possible. If it isn't you, it will be someone else who'll twist what I have to say one way or another.

That was a quick response!

I apologize for "twisting" what you had to say. I was trying to get clarification, which I did. Saying that Israeli missiles fired into populated areas is "the same thing" implies that this is a war, and seems to imply that the suicide bomber tactics are justified in war. Pardon my misunderstanding.

If it's a war, one then has to look at who the two sides are targeting with these weapons. Civilians do get caught in the crossfire as you say, but it's my belief that the evidence shows the Israeli side exercises some care to see that civilians are not needlessly harmed, while the Palestinians are not so cautious, firing unguided Qassams and other missiles into Israel, and, more critically, having these walking bombs walk right into civilian areas knowing that's who'll be harmed.

When Westerners start seeing these sorts of tactics used against civilians in places as far apart as Indonesia, Spain, India, Egypt... well there seems to be a pattern.

I'll be interested to see the continuation of your series challenging the interpretation of the Quran that calls for attacks against the kuffar. The deen of the Muslims revealed in the Quran is a comprehensive political and legal system, that in my view, is most compatible with a totalitarian theocratic government, and not a secular democracy such as you live under in Australia. Shariah is the supreme law in Islam, and it's a religious duty to establish the caliphate, so it must necessarily be a religous duty to create political conditions that favor its establishment, such as trying to get secular laws based on the shariah implemented.

At the very least, the attacks against kuffar by those claiming support in Islamic doctrine also serve to destroy the secular freedom and openness that support democratic governments, resulting in more domestic surveillance and security restrictions.

Ahmed said...

Given the Israeli military has all the advanced tech I guess you could argue they can make more use of their munitions than Hamas can. I mean if Hamas could target Israeli military bases they would definitely prefer it, wouldn't they?

Might I remind you of what happened in Lebanon? Cities raised to rubble in the name of a few they claimed were hidden in the cities.

I can tell you for a fact that in some countries if you give people the right to vote they will vote for a caliphate government, yes that includes the women too. Really truly the solution to the world is not democracy as the US likes to claim, every nation has its preferences and thats what causes a lot of political strife. I think there was a study conducted in some middle eastern countries, apparently 7/10 countries would rather have a shariah government if given the choice over a democratic government. Of course the reason is quite straightforward, Islam rose to be a world power under Islamic law and the only way you can unite the different people in that part of the world is under the common binding of them all, that is Islam.

Of course if stability is met in such a way the US would have another political enemy besides China to combat against which goes against its interests. Hence the reason for super imposing dummy democratic governments to a nation unwilling to have one.

Ahmed said...

I'm not really challenging anyone really, I'm just bringing the proper tafsir to light. Well I am challenging those few politically motivated groups but in terms of 1400 years of accepted understandings of the Quran I'm just repeating whats been said already.

Gharqad said...

ahmed said...

Given the Israeli military has all the advanced tech I guess you could argue they can make more use of their munitions than Hamas can. I mean if Hamas could target Israeli military bases they would definitely prefer it, wouldn't they?

Well, I'm not convinced of that. They can't walk suicide bombers into Israeli military bases, so they kill shoppers and restaurant patrons instead, who have no military value and besides which you say they are forbidden to kill in Islam? Their usual rationalization, as I understand it, is that since all Israelis are conscripted into the Army, there are no non-military targets. Seems an easy excuse.


Might I remind you of what happened in Lebanon? Cities raised to rubble in the name of a few they claimed were hidden in the cities.


You exaggerate a little, but that's the result when Hizb'allah hides among civilians, and sets up weapons in residential neighborhoods. If they don't have Hizb'allah military bases to attack, it's open war, and those who support Hizb'allah in Southern Lebanon, as well as those who don't, pay the price for them being there. Hizb'allah's even part of the Lebanese government, so in some respects this was a war between two nation-states, with some support from the Lebanese people for the actions of Hizb'allah. But your point is well taken.

I think there was a study conducted in some middle eastern countries, apparently 7/10 countries would rather have a shariah government if given the choice over a democratic government. Of course the reason is quite straightforward, Islam rose to be a world power under Islamic law and the only way you can unite the different people in that part of the world is under the common binding of them all, that is Islam.

So you answer my second question here, "How can Islam be compatible with democracy when the shariah of the Quran is the supreme law?"

The Muslims, who know what they want, mostly don't want a democracy. They would rather live under a shariah state, as that's what the Quran instructs them is the proper government. If this is the case, why would Muslims want to come to the Western countries at all? Do Muslims in the West favor establishing shariah here? If so, no thank you.

Of course if stability is met in such a way the US would have another political enemy besides China to combat against which goes against its interests. Hence the reason for super imposing dummy democratic governments to a nation unwilling to have one.

I presume you're speaking of Iraq, whose citizens voted by the millions for leaders nominated by various parties, including religious parties, and who braved the threats of death from foreign takfiri and Baathist diehards to adopt a somewhat secular constitution and government. They don't seem particularly unwilling, at least.

As for China, you might not be aware, but nearly everything sold in U.S. stores (I exaggerate a little) is made in China. As Churchill supposedly said, one doesn't set the dog against your customers at the shop door.

Ahmed said...

Muslims go to western nations because they can't practice freely in their own countries. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. It happened 1400 years ago, nobody complained.

Well I was talking about 70% of countries in the Middle East, there hasn't been a proper election in iraq since forever.

Gharqad said...

ahmed said...

Muslims go to western nations because they can't practice freely in their own countries. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. It happened 1400 years ago, nobody complained.

1400 years ago? This is only 1428 after the hijira by the Islamic calendar, and Muhammad received the Quran in about 610 by the Western calendar, which is 1397 years ago. The hijira from Makkah to Madinah was perhaps a long distance in those days, but that's not as long a distance as migrating into a completely different part of the world, separated by language and culture from the Arabic/Bedouin model. If nobody complained back then, it's probably because they were all Arabs.

By contrast, like it or not, Islamic culture is quite alien in the West, and increasingly perceived as threatening. Now if Muslims are going to Western countries to so that they may practice freely, that says more than words can about the relative merit of the government systems involved. Secular government can tend towards pluralism to a certain extent, if the majority accepts and tolerates minorities. But its my understanding that in the shariah state, there are considerable restrictions imposed on the dhimma (non-Muslim minorities) to acknowlege their lesser status under shariah. (And because it's shariah, and in the Quran, such laws cannot be changed democratically, even if they result in discord.)

The secular law, however, can be changed, and Muslims in the West could increasingly face restrictions that would eliminate religious tolerance if those people who use Islamic justifications for their attacks take the violence too far. It's entirely possible for "small groups of extremists" (present company excepted ;) ) to provoke a much larger war than what we have now.

Well I was talking about 70% of countries in the Middle East, there hasn't been a proper election in Iraq since forever.

Well, are elections Islamic? It seems odd to complain of the illegitimacy of Middle Eastern governments on the basis of whether they hold free elections if that's not an Islamic concept. If the people want to vote for secular government, or shariah, or whatever, I support their right to do so. In a democracy, one tends to get the government one deserves.

Ahmed said...

They migrated to a christian ruled country to escape the oppresion they faced where they lived. Simple as that really.

Your understanding is wrong and misplaced. First and foremost if a Muslim lives in a western nation it is obviously not ruled by sharia law hence it doesn't apply. By practice freely I mean just that, practice freely, pray five times a day, go to a mosque, fast on ramadhan, give charity. I didn't say 'to start a new government' because thats a different matter all together. As for in a Muslim controlled area non-Muslims don't have any of their rights revoked and are in no way treated as 'lesser', I don't know where you got that idea from but certainly it is unacceptable under sharia law for a non-Muslim to be treated as a lesser human being than a Muslim, they still have the same rights as Muslims and if they are deprived of those rights then the Islamic government is not an Islamic government, it's a totalitarian government.

Yes, Islam is different to western culture however if you're going to take the 'Muslims should integrate' routine I'll have to ask 'integrate how?'. The whole idea of a democracy is to cater to different groups, if we talk of integration then everyone will have to change faith to roman catholic and vote conservative republican.

Like I said, there is no specific form of government that is reacquired to be created under sharia law, so an Islamic Democratic country is very well possible (though extremely unlikely). Here in Australia voting in elections is compulsory, and I vote in them, theres nothing 'unislamic' about it, of course there is nothing islamic about it either besides the fact I am upholding the law of this country, as is my duty as a Muslim (provided the country does not try to take away my rights).

The problem with small groups is they cause trouble only when given attention, seriously, 99% of the time when some misguided git decides he will blow up an airplane he only goes as far as making the claim and not taking the action. Either way I fully support having his stupid ignorant rear end thrown in prison since people like that are a danger to the safety of people in general.