Muslims/Christian

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Lokrian
A handful of civilizations are named by the Bible in the OT as insufferable, and are to be utterly obliterated, but in general there are certain expectations of how to carry out warfare. Sort of an ancient Geneva Convention.

You're right about the specific rules governing their warfare; on top of this, the Israelites were specifically commissioned to wipe out certain people-groups, and no others. (God specified which groups in a geographical sense, but they weren't being killed simply because they live where the Israelites were going to live - they were being killed because of their practices, which presumably they had all borrowed from their neighbours anyway.) So it's not genocide, but more a judicial execution. You'll find elsewhere some cases where, under certain conditions, an entire town was to be wiped out (I don't know that the law was ever invoked, but the possibility was there); it's the same sort of thing on a larger scale. Very very specific rules govern who was to be executed, and how, and by whom.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

Not sure how to interpret this. Are words in parens added to improve readability, but aren't in the original (like italics in the King James Bible)?

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by ejda
Believe it or not, this is the difference between Wahhabis and other more peaceful versions of Islam. As far as I know from discussing these things with others (if you are ready other forums these things pop very frequently), those specific verses speak about a historical even. To simplify things, those verses talk about pagan who had attacked muslims.

Now in the "peaceful" versions of Islam people are aware of these things, and don't conclude they should kill pagans anywhere they find them. As far as I know they conlude Allah is allowing them to fight back.

However sects like Wahhabi, treat them the verses as they appear. They don't care about metaphors, historical background, and etc. and they are also naturally violent and use the verses as a scapegoat to justify their actions.

I don't doubt that there are more peaceful ways of looking at that at all. There is also the entire Sunnah, the "second leg" of Islam aside from the Qu'ran, which I have not read at all, which I am sure goes into these matters as well. My only point is that there is no such interpretation even possible in the Old Testament. The limited people groups against whom typical restrictions on warfare do not apply are named outright, right along with the reasons why they are treated differently. The New Testament likewise has nothing that could be interpreted this way. As I said, this is a none to subtle difference in the attitudes the religions seem designed to engender in their followers.

The thing I do have my doubts about is whether someone has to be a Wahabbi to interpret this verse the way it appears. The broad support terrorists receive all across the Muslim world would seem to indicate that this is not so.

This is not to say that I believe people should just give up on a more peaceful Islam. All religions evolve. Christianity could be described as evolving out of Judaism, and modern Christianity resembles older versions in some ways, but not in others. This is why I believe it is a good idea to try to bring Democracy to the Middle East, so that the people actually have the ability to influence their religion in this way. I know many who feel that Democracy will be of little benefit there since the majority will still be hostile to the U.S. specifically and the west in general. "We can't fix the whole world," they might say, it it seems a reasonable enough thing to believe. But, I have had acquaintances through the years that were Muslim, and I find that like just about anyone else, when things come down from the lofty and philosophical and get down to just how people want to be able to live, so many problems just melt away in the face of the common experience of just being people.

So please don't let me come across as someone who is trying to paint Islam into a corner. I do feel, however, that in all honesty there are substantive differences between various religions and philosophies, and that those differences should not be ignored or misrepresented.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Rosuav
You're right about the specific rules governing their warfare; on top of this, the Israelites were specifically commissioned to wipe out certain people-groups, and no others. (God specified which groups in a geographical sense, but they weren't being killed simply because they live where the Israelites were going to live - they were being killed because of their practices, which presumably they had all borrowed from their neighbours anyway.) So it's not genocide, but more a judicial execution. You'll find elsewhere some cases where, under certain conditions, an entire town was to be wiped out (I don't know that the law was ever invoked, but the possibility was there); it's the same sort of thing on a larger scale. Very very specific rules govern who was to be executed, and how, and by whom.

Being a Christian myself, I am inclined to agree with your assessment. You must be aware though that many would find this a rather sanitized version of how these verses come across to modern sensibilities.

Originally posted by Rosuav
Not sure how to interpret this. Are words in parens added to improve readability, but aren't in the original (like italics in the King James Bible)?

Heck if I know. The page that allows you access to the whole Qu'ran is here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/


Comments on translation are available by clicking on links at the top of each chapter. They all lead here:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/qmtintro.html

The three names - YUSUFALI, PICKTHAL, and SHAKIR - represent three different translaters, so what you are getting here is three different translations. I think using all three should give one a relatively good idea what the verse is supposed to mean.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Lokrian
All religions evolve. Christianity could be described as evolving out of Judaism...

Not quite. Christianity is the new covenant; the old (under which the Jews lived) was designed to point people to Christ. When Jesus came, lived, died, and defeated death through his restoration to life, the old covenant was obsoleted - one might say, marked out of use, such that garbage collection could eliminate it. (Trust Rosuav to bring geekiness into even this!) God's plan was for the nation to welcome the new ways with open arms, though in His sovereignty He knew that some would not. In a sense, since we are dealing with the same God, it is the same religion; but Jesus stated in a number of ways that the laws would be different - both more relaxed (a lot of the ceremonial washings and sacrifices were eliminated), and more strict (eg hating someone and wishing them dead is as much sin as actually murdering them).

The old covenant (the one made with Abraham and renewed to Isaac and Jacob/Israel) was largely based on biological descent - the sons and daughters of the line. Outsiders brought into Israelite ways are rare and noteworthy (for instance Ruth, a Moabitess, who not only became a Jew but became great grandmother to David the psalmist and king); today, most Christians are Gentile by birth, simply because the Jews are one nation, and there are many that are not Jews. So Christianity is quite different from Judaism, and yet, it is quite similar too.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Rosuav
Not quite. Christianity is the new covenant; the old (under which the Jews lived) was designed to point people to Christ. When Jesus came, lived, died, and defeated death through his restoration to life, the old covenant was obsoleted - one might say, marked out of use, such that garbage collection could eliminate it. (Trust Rosuav to bring geekiness into even this!)

I don't know how into all the end times mess you are into, but this is merely one possible interpretation. Some point to how Paul chastised Peter for allowing some Jews to try to force too much Judaism on the Gentile believers, then turned right around and participated in Judaic practices himself, and suggest that the promises made to the Jews are not yet entirely come to pass, and won't be complete until the 144,000 and all that jazz.

Originally posted by Rosuav
God's plan was for the nation to welcome the new ways with open arms, though in His sovereignty He knew that some would not.

I think this is demonstrably untrue. The Bible says point blank that God anticipates a great turning away before the end times, not an obedient and Godly Israel. What's funny to me is that the most popularly known version of end times prophecy, the Left Behind series, is actually one of the less literal interpretations of the prophecy, and yet it still retains so much supernatural reference. I wonder what Muslim's believe about the end times and so forth? Maybe Ejda knows.

Still, I think you're more or less preaching to the choir here. I am not sure how to tie this in to the whole Christian/Muslim theme of the thread, other than maybe to point out that Islam sprang up hundreds of years after Christ and in a people group substantially set apart from the original Jews, or anyone that was practicing a lot of Christianity either. Make of that what you will.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Lokrian
I think this is demonstrably untrue. The Bible says point blank that God anticipates a great turning away before the end times, not an obedient and Godly Israel.

There's a difference here between God's purpose, namely what God would prefer to happen, and God's foreknowledge of what will happen, and His consequent planning, if you call it that, because there are some things in which He will not be thwarted. I'm using very loose terms here and above, in an attempt to avoid the overused jargonny terms that lose their meaning, but fear I'm going too far the other way... you'll doubtless pull me up where I go TOO loose

[Jidoe]

Reading this conversation, I feel compelled to post the lyrics for Nightwish's "The Kinslayer" (it's a duet). I think this song describes well almost all the wars that ever happened in the world, and not just "Jihad".

For whom the gun tolls
For whom the prey weeps
Bow before a war
Call it religion

Some wounds never heal
Some tears never will
Dry for the unkind
Cry for mankind

Even the dead cry
- Their only comfort
Kill your friend, I don't care
Orchid kids, blinded stare

Need to understand
No need to forgive
No truth no sense left to be followed

A: "Facing this unbearable fear like meeting an old friend"
B: "Time to die, poor mates, You made me what I am!"

A: "In this world of a million religions everyone prays the same way"

B: "Your praying is in vain It'll all be over soon"
A: "Father help me, save me a place by your side!"
B: "There is no god Our creed is but for ourselves"

B: "Not a hero unless you die Our species eat the wounded ones"

A: "Drunk with the blood of your victims
I do feel your pity-wanting pain,
Lust for fame, a deadly game"

B: "Run away with your impeccable kin!"

B: "- Good wombs hath borne bad sons..."
- Cursing, God, why?
Falling for every lie
Survivors' guilt
In us forevermore

15 candles
Redeemers of this world
Dwell in hypocrisy:
A: "How were we supposed to know"

[Lokrian]

For most of history, religion has been an identifying mark of any given culture, and since it was such an imprtant part of any given culture, it is no wonder many people believe things such as what appears to be the message of the song lyrics above.

However, since some cultures have begun trying to define themselves as entirely secular, such as the USSR, or China, the theory that it is just religion that spawns this sort of violence is pretty much dead.

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Lokrian
However, since some cultures have begun trying to define themselves as entirely secular, such as the USSR, or China, the theory that it is just religion that spawns this sort of violence is pretty much dead.

True. That's why I stated in the beginning that *almost* all the wars happened because of religion.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Jidoe
True. That's why I stated in the beginning that *almost* all the wars happened because of religion.

To me, the implication is that all wars are started over cultural and economic matters for which things like skin color or religion become more or less incidental. There always have been, and always will be, a plethora of things around which people can choose to define themselves and others.

That's why despite your slight qualification, I felt the need to point out how completely irrelevant the apparent theme of the song is given what we now know about secularism. Being secular in and of itself can become merely one more thing that causes people to feel themselves somehow set apart and superior, leading them to dehumanize others and blame them for, among other things, "almost all the wars."