How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Quran Quontroversy   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Quran Quontroversy

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


0 posted 01-08-2007 06:08 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Townhall.com: November 28, 2006

I thought I'd start a discussion thread on the recent Quran Oath controversy, which escalated about newly elected Minnesota representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to the U.S Congress, asked to place his hand on a Quran rather than the Bible in his ceremonial swear-in, was criticized by pundit Dennis Prager in an editorial column published November 28th of last year, suggesting that his decision "undermines American civilization" and that: "When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization.", adding that the Bible is the only book America is interested in.

Townhall.com: December 5, 2006

After the editorial received wide publicity and generated many e-mails from both Ellison and Prager supporters on the debate, Dennis Prager released another editorial the following week, responding to critics who accused Prager of religious intolerance and bigotry, and suggesting a possible solution to the debate, adding the following statement in the article:

*

"You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents'. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America's values just as much as practicing Christians did.

America derives its laws from its Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don't get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document. And that Creator and those inalienable rights emanate from the Bible. Keith Ellison's freedom to openly believe and practice Islam and to run for elective office as a Muslim is a direct result of a society molded by the Bible and the people who believed in it, a fact he should be willing to honor as he is sworn in."


*

Star Tribune: December 20, 2006: Full Text Of Virgil Goode Letter

The controversy reached a climatic peak when fifth-term Virginia representative Virgil Goode issued a letter to constituents in his district two weeks later. The text went as follows:

*

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office." Thank you again for your email and thoughts.


Sincerely yours,

Virgil H. Goode, Jr.

70 E. Court St., Suite 215

Rocky Mount, Va. 24151



*

Following Goode's letter, as well as several statements suggesting he wouldn't apologize to Ellison following calls for apology, other representatives openly expressed their thoughts regarding the matter. Here's a few of them:

*

He wants to take his oath on the Quran, that's fine. I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me."

- Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado)


"I do not believe that the law or rules should be changed to require one official holy book for use in administering our oath of office. As a Member of Congress and as an ordained minister, I believe America's founders erected a wall between church and state – not to keep religion or faith out of public discourse – but instead, to keep the government out of an individual's faith and out of churches or other places of worship. I recall that our founders prohibited any religious test to qualify for public office and our Constitution already protects public prayer and other public observances of an individual's religious expressions. Imposing one holy book for the administration of a federal oath of office will diminish the religious liberties of all Americans, including my colleagues in Congress who do not share my Christian faith but may be Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or some other belief."

- Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Missouri)


"As we continue to seek new strategies to protect our nation, I feel strongly that America must continue its outreach to the majority of moderate, peaceful members of the Islamic faith, as partners in combating terrorism. I respect the Constitutional right of Members of Congress, indeed, of every U.S. citizen, freely to exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Koran in accordance with the tenets of their religion."

- Senator John Warner (R-Virginia)


"Each of us has every right to lay our hand on the Bible that we were raised with; that's what America is all about, diversity, understanding and tolerance. It doesn't appear that Dennis Prager has learned anything from his time on the Holocaust commission."

- Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, (D-Florida)


*

The Washington Post: January 3, 2007

Finally, last Wednesday (January 3rd) it was reported by the Washington Post that Keith Ellison was to make his ceremonial swear-in using a Quran owned by former President Thomas Jefferson, who officially swore in yesterday with it.

*

*

So what are your thoughts on this whole matter in general, including the debate of religious freedom vs. preservation of traditional ideals, Muslims in Congress, etc.?

In final thoughts here, I want to add these final facts in support of Ellison's argument:

*

1) Contrary to what Virgil Goode was arguing in that unless we get tougher on immigration that we'll see more Muslims elected to Congress and demanding use of Qurans, immigration truly has NOTHING to do with this matter, in that Keith Ellison was in fact born in Detroit.

2) Two Buddhists were also elected to the 110th Congress (Representatives Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Hank Johnson of Georgia, the latter of who defeated Cynthia McKinney in a special election) and yet you don't see it being argued: "If American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Buddhists elected to office and demanding the use of the Mahayana Sutras, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead!"

3) Contrary to what Prager claims in his initial editorial on this matter, this ISN'T the first time an elected representative declined to make their official swear-in on the Bible. In fact, former Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John Quincy Adams and Herbert Hoover are among those who also demanded NOT to use the Bible, and President Franklin Pierce alternatively made his oath on a law book.


*

However, there is a happier ending to this controversy, as reflected in this article from late last week:

*

Winston-Salem Journal: January 5, 2007

"On a day of new beginnings in Congress, Rep. Virgil Goode shook hands yesterday with the first Muslim House member, who used the Quran during a swearing -in ceremony.

Goode, R-Va., said that during a brief conversation on the House floor, he congratulated freshman Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., on his election to Congress, and the two agreed to talk at length later.

"He said, 'I'd like to have coffee with you sometime.' I'm not a coffee drinker, but I'd be glad to talk with him," Goode said in an interview."


*

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


1 posted 01-08-2007 09:21 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi



How do you deal with a book
which in fact says fight the Jews
and don't trust Christians?

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


2 posted 01-08-2007 10:52 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I believe that claim falls victim to the logical fallacy of hasty generalization and is grossly oversimplistic, especially since most Americans have admitted they feel they don't have a real knowledge of the Islamic faith, and despite polling trends revealing a polarizing divide between those favorable and unfavorable of Islam, they also reveal that those who go about studying Islam more grow more favorable and positive toward the faith the more they study it.

Therefore, especially since we're currently fighting a war on terrorism in the Middle East, many have grown overly sensitive that if many militants happen to be Islamic, then somehow it means anyone who practices Islam is likely to be acquainted or a participant of these violent militia groups and terrorist organizations. I happen to find that most unfortunate, and believe that verses in the Quran have deliberately been taken out of context, and most importantly that when reading the verses in any holy scripture, the whole must also be considered, and moreover be open-minded about the various things happening during the time this was written like with other sacred texts.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


3 posted 01-10-2007 04:31 PM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779

THe Quaran does not say that Huan YI. It has been interpeted that way by the fanical muslims though. The bible if interpeted literally prohibits gay marriage.

Too many people interpet these books literal in sense of their life.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


4 posted 01-12-2007 10:33 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"It has been interpeted that way by the fanical muslims though."


My apologies; I read it as a simple man
as does the majority.


.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


5 posted 01-13-2007 11:39 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The Quran is very good at speaking for itself and its followers.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam

"They question you concerning fighting in the sacred month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave (matter); but to prevent access to Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, to expel its members, and polytheism are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they make you renegades from your religion. If any of you turn back and die in unbelief, your works will be lost and you will go to Hell. Surely those who believe and leave their homes to fight in Allah's Cause have the hope of Allah's mercy." Qur'an:2:217

"Wherever you are, death will find you, even if you are in towers strong and high! So what is wrong with these people, that they fail to understand these simple words?"
Qur'an:4:78

"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."  Qur'an 5:33

"Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'" Bukhari: V4B52N220
"I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle." Qur'an 8:12

"If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned." Qur'an 8:57

"It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."
Qur'an 8:67

"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Qur'an 9:5

"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." Qur'an 8:39

"O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding." Qur'an 8:65

"When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam." Qur'an:47:4


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


6 posted 01-13-2007 01:00 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Denise, I think if you look at it objectively you'll realize the Bible includes very similar passages and more than its share of horror stories. The Jews in the OT kicked some serious butt under the guidance and auspices of their God, slaughtering men, women, and children seemingly without conscience. Christians have been no better, from the Crusades to the Inquisition to the New World (and, personally, I'd include some few 21st Century human rights violations, too), justifying anything and everything vile by texts not greatly different from what you just detailed in the Quran.

Do you really want to talk about isolated passages cited with no real study or understanding?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


7 posted 01-13-2007 01:57 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron,

I think there is a difference however between something offered as principle (ie, killing unbelievers in the Koran), and something commanded under time-specific orders (ie, Old Testament war under YHWH's command).  The difference is, one defines the whole moral tone, while the other a dispensation.  

While the Bible could correct it's own human response to evil by the advent of a newer dispensation of grace rather than justice without mercy, I am not aware that the Koran makes any moral advancement in it's own context.  Jihad in the Koran, as far as I can tell, is the whole solution to unrepentance and unbelief.  There is no post-Jihadism in the Koran, though there is an antithesis between law and grace in the Bible.  


The difference with the Crusades, is that any warmongering was done in contrast to the teachings of Jesus, making it a deviation rather than a confirmation.  


I don't think the argument that Jihad is a deviation from the Koran, is a very strong one.  But I would be willing to listen.


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


8 posted 01-13-2007 02:43 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Okay then, Stephen. Explain to me how killing unbelievers is different than killing witches, either in the past or in current times.

Oh, and please do so, not from the perspective of a knowledgable Christian, but rather from someone who has only as much experience with the Bible as you and Denise do with the Quran.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


9 posted 01-13-2007 03:32 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ron, then I assume that you assume that I have done no real study and have no understanding of the topic?  

These are not isolated passages, but rather the main theme running through the books of the so-called "religion of peace".

Stephen is correct. You can read all of the Quran, and for that matter all the associated Islamic books, the Sira, the Tarikh and the Hadith and you are overwhelmed with the principle of violence, subjugation and murder of the "infidel" or "unbeliever" (anyone not a muslim) and even of muslims who do not participate in such violence for Allah. There is a decided lack of mercy, respect and tolerance for beliefs other than their own, through and through, start to finish. Very depressing. I feel sorry for those caught up in this madness, who actually believe in such a vengeful, hateful diety. They must have such miserable lives.

The kindest thing I have ever read was the allowing of some Jews and Christians to actually live after their lands were conquered : "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low." [Another translation says:] "pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and their state of subjection." Qur'an 9:29.

Although Muhammad used and incorporated some of the Old Testament and spoke of Jesus and Mary, going so far as to ficticously "quote" them validating Muhammad, Islam and Allah, the difference between the writings of Muhammad and the Bible couldn't be further apart, as would be evident even to the casual reader. The predominate theme of one is death, destruction, conquest, suppression and justice without mercy, while the predominate theme of the other is hope, love, redemption and justice tempered with mercy. The one breeds death, the other, life.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


10 posted 01-13-2007 03:34 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Ron, "in the past", I'll give you. Hopefully, we have become more civilized and more informed over the last 200 plus years. As for "in current times", I have to agree that there are nut cases probably in all religions. The difference is, it was not the Landover Baptist Church that committed 9-11 and all those many other acts of terrorism against the U.S. over the last decade.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


11 posted 01-13-2007 08:04 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
2) Two Buddhists were also elected to the 110th Congress (Representatives Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Hank Johnson of Georgia, the latter of who defeated Cynthia McKinney in a special election) and yet you don't see it being argued: "If American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Buddhists elected to office and demanding the use of the Mahayana Sutras, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead!"


If you don't allow the Koran, what do you do here? What do you do with free thinkers? What God should Buddhists and atheists pledge an oath to?

A God they don't believe in?

How much of a joke do you really want to turn all this stuff into?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


12 posted 01-13-2007 08:15 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
Okay then, Stephen. Explain to me how killing unbelievers is different than killing witches, either in the past or in current times.



As a principle, it's not.  I never said it was.


quote:
Oh, and please do so, not from the perspective of a knowledgable Christian, but rather from someone who has only as much experience with the Bible as you and Denise do with the Quran.



I don't think a teaching or ideology should be held responsible for its abuses, even those out of ignorance.  However, my argument is that the Koran may be itself fundamentally violent.  You say that I'm unaquainted with the Koran (and admittedly, I don't study it as I do the Bible).  But using that kind of argument requires you to be familiar with it as well.  At least familiar enough with it to say that the Koran is not fundamentally jihadistic.  And that kind of argument requires hermeneutics, not the tit for tat that I'm afraid you and I are bound to get into.     

But thus far I've read enough verses in the Koran to know that it differs significantly from the Bible, even considering the Bible's most bellicose texts.  When the OT dealt in such things, the command was a very specific "Kill all the Amalekites".  The Koran says very generally "kill unbelievers".


In this much we agree Ron, it's wrong to take isolated scriptures, and use them to justify violence ... Muslim, Christian, or otherwise.


I guess I'm gonna have to dust the old Koran off here shortly.  


Interesting discussion.


Stephen.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


13 posted 01-13-2007 08:26 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I think one coming into the office should respect such a tradition.  The tradition was there first, and it doesn't harm anyone or enforce the book on anyone's life.  If the Koran instead had such historical importance and connection to the country, and was the traditional book, then I would say the Koran ought to be used instead of the bible.  But it doesn't.  I think it is somewhat disrespctful to demand one's own book instead of honouring the importance of the one that influenced America most.  That would be like me demanding that the Iliad should be used because it is closer to my bosom than the Bible and the Koran.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


14 posted 01-13-2007 10:32 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ron, then I assume that you assume that I have done no real study and have no understanding of the topic?

Yes, Denise, and I think that's a safe assumption, too. After some fifty years of study, my understanding of the Bible is still, at best, rudimentary. And that's a walk I've actually been walking. Simply putting on another man's shoes for a short time doesn't reveal much about his life. Especially if you keep looking back over your shoulder at where you would rather be.

quote:
The predominate theme of one is death, destruction, conquest, suppression and justice without mercy, while the predominate theme of the other is hope, love, redemption and justice tempered with mercy. The one breeds death, the other, life.

But you don't say which one is which, Denise?

I honestly haven't read the Quran. But the Bible I've read is one that is filled with more than its fair share of death and destruction. And, heck, the suppression continues right into the 21st Century.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not arguing that's what the Bible is about. I'm simply saying that's what it appears to be about if you don't look pretty closely.

quote:
I think it is somewhat disrespctful to demand one's own book instead of honouring the importance of the one that influenced American most.

Good idea, Essorant. Anyone got a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations?

quote:
I have to agree that there are nut cases probably in all religions.

But that's the whole point, Pete. Why would you call them nut cases? From all outward appearances, the Landover Baptist Church seems to be trying to do exactly what the Bible tells them to do. What is it that makes them nut cases?

quote:
And that kind of argument requires hermeneutics, not the tit for tat that I'm afraid you and I are bound to get into.

Stephen, I think if you can answer the question I just put to Pete we won't have to do any tit for tats.

Look guys, I don't know crap about the Quran and, as I already said, my understanding of the Bible is sorely limited. I've also never been a Boy Scout. Or a cop. I never went to med school, didn't pass the bar, and have never sat on the bench. I'm pretty much clueless about the standards a whole lot people apply to their lives.

What I do know, though, is that you don't judge a statistical population by only examining the outliers like Landover Baptist Church. I've never read, let alone lived or studied, the Boy Scout creed or the Hippocratic Oath. But I don't think I have to either. I think I can look at all the Scouts and doctors in the world and get a pretty good feel for the standards they've applied to their lives. And if you come to me with an interpretation of the Boy Scout creed that directly contradicts what I've been seeing my whole life?

Sorry, guys, but if the Quran is predominantly murder and mayhem, I'm afraid there's a whole lot of Muslims out there who never got the word. Do you think we should tell them they've got it all wrong?


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


15 posted 01-14-2007 12:14 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:

Yes, Denise, and I think that's a safe assumption


Well I guess even you can be wrong sometimes. Nobody's perfect.


quote:

Sorry, guys, but if the Quran is predominantly murder and mayhem


That's something you can only determine after you personally check it out for yourself.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


16 posted 01-14-2007 01:38 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It doesn't seem like Ron was saying the same thing as your question.   Perhaps he misread your words a bit.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


17 posted 01-14-2007 03:42 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I don't think the argument that Jihad is a deviation from the Koran, is a very strong one.  But I would be willing to listen.



Great !  

I don't think that you're wrong Stephen -- I just don't think you're fully informed of jihad:

quote:

Jihad is an Arab word and proper name (to be differentiated from purely Islamic names and words). Arabs (i.e. the Arab-speaking world) are mostly muslims, but the Arab world also contains other minorities of different religions and beliefs (mostly: christians, druze, and jews). Originaly, Jihad is an arabic word meaning Fight, Struggle or Effort, derived from the verb Jâhadà, meaning to struggle with a lot of effort (Note that it has the same meaning of the German word Kampf). And strange as it may seem, some Christian Arabs also called (and still call) their children Jihad, knowing that this word is not necessarily Islamic. But the lack of Arab culture in the knowledge of the Western world misleads people to think that this word is of purely Muslim origins.

This is how Jihad has eventually become an essentially Islamic term. And while it used to be a full arabic expression that the Muslim Arabs used (Islamic Jihad), now it just suffices to say Jihad to mean basially the same thing, and that is mostly due to the wide abuse by the media of this half-expression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_%28disambiguation%29

is an Islamic term, meaning to strive or struggle in the way of God, and is sometimes referred to as "the sixth pillar of Islam", although it has no official status.[1] Jihad has a wider meaning in Islamic literature. It can be striving to lead a good Muslim life, praying and fasting regularly, being an attentive spouse and parent or working hard to spread the message of Islam.[2] Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defence of Islam, the holy war. Despite the fact that Jihad is not supposed to include aggressive warfare, this has occurred, as exemplified by early extremists like Kharijites and contemporary groups like Egypt's Jihad Organization (which assassinated Anwar Al Sadat) as well as Jihad organizations in Lebanon, the Gulf states, and Indonesia.[1]
-------
Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one's soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting.

Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[4]

Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.
Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), et al. It is one weapon in the jihadi arsenal.
Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm) is a struggle for good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as medical sciences).
Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, espionage, and the penetration of Western universities by salafi Islamic ideology, in numerous Middle East Studies departments funded by Saudi Arabia.
Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad



see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


18 posted 01-14-2007 02:01 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

That is interesting.  It seems very similar to the origins of our English word win:

Win
(From Etymology on-line)

"fusion of O.E. winnan "struggle for, work at, strive, fight," and gewinnan "to gain or succeed by struggling, to win," both from P.Gmc. *wenwanan (cf. O.S. winnan, O.N. vinna, O.Fris. winna, Du. winnen "to gain, win," Dan. vinde "to win," O.H.G. winnan "to strive, struggle, fight," Ger. gewinnen "to gain, win," Goth. gawinnen "to suffer, toil"). Perhaps related to wish, or from PIE *van- "overcome, conquer." Sense of "to be victorious" is recorded from c.1300. The noun in O.E. meant "labor, strife, conflict;" modern sense of "a victory in a game or contest" is first attested 1862, from the verb. Breadwinner (see bread) preserves the sense of "toil" in O.E. winnan. Phrase you can't win them all (1954) first attested in Raymond Chandler."

There is also Old English handgewinn "manual work, struggle with the hands"

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


19 posted 01-16-2007 11:07 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR:
quote:
I don't think that you're wrong Stephen -- I just don't think you're fully informed of jihad


No, I am aware of the other "kinds" of Jihad, through interpretation.  But I have my doubts as to whether that kind of interpretation is truest to the text (not as to whether that interpretation is the most moral, because it obviously IS).  


About the best I can muster in your direction, is to concede that both kinds of Jihad are taught in the Koran, in which case we still have the problem of the violent kind being a fundamental principle, as it were, of Islam.  


I have no problem in saying that Muslims (as a religious designation) who denounce violence in the name of religion are more morally correct than their crazed cousins.  But I also have no problem in saying that their peaceful interpretation is heretical to the Koranic religion of Mohammed.  


I never said all heresy was bad, did I?    


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


20 posted 01-16-2007 11:34 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Killed any witches lately, Stephen? Or are you, too, a heretic?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


21 posted 01-17-2007 03:54 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

If you can show me where Jesus prescribes killing witches, I'll admit to being a heretic I suppose.  





Stephen
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


22 posted 01-17-2007 08:39 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Exodus 22:18 " Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

There are many other examples, of course, Stephen, as I'm quite sure you know. Or, perhaps you're suggesting that Jesus is not God? Should we now read only the words written in red?  

Let's assume the latter for just a moment, then, and see where that takes us. Did Jesus say NOT to kill witches? Did Jesus say to disobey the Father?

I don't think it's necessarily fair for you to apply a literal interpretation of the Koran, Stephen, unless you agree we should do the same thing with the Bible.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


23 posted 01-18-2007 12:02 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron,

Tsk, tsk, tsk ...  I already mentioned a refining of our moral prescriptions, in the moving from a dispensation of extreme justice (is it unjust that sinners die?) to one of extreme mercy.  If you want to say that God changes, that's fine.  I would rather say that he reveals a fullness of who he is over time ... that we needed to see the severity of the Law before we could even understand grace.  


If you want to say that Jesus is God, I will certainly not disagree.  I only think that God's revelation of himself must be incomplete and lacking until / without the incarnation.  So the question is not whether Jesus is God ... the question is whether or not stern commands of law against sinners is a manifestation of Jesus, or merely a damning truth which underscored our need of him.  Either way, your willy nilly identification of Jesus with Old Testament Commands at least should cause you to question why Jesus ever needed to come in the first place ... why there is such an antithesis between the Old and New, as is described in the New Testament.  


But, regardless of your interpretation of scripture, or how arbitrary you think mine is, the fact is that we have this stark change inside the pages of the Bible.  It was not uncommon for Paul, or Jesus to say things like "You have heard it said ... But I say to you ...".  I don't think, as a Christian yourself, you'd be willing to think that this a purely arbitary change, or even a correction of what is purely wrong.  Though that's what it seems like you're implying at times, when you're not denying the change altogether.  The whole point I'm making is that I don't think such a change is reflected in the Koran.  The Koran seems to be a return to strict hyper-Mosaic-Monotheism, with a strong intent to stay there.  Show me in the Koran itself where it even walks in the same neighborhood of Jesus' ethic of "love your enemies", "do not resist an evil man", and "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".  


You keep skirting this difference.  I may be wrong, but you certainly can't show that I am by quoting Old Testament expressions of the Law.  Over and against the New Testament ethic of Loving one's enemies, you will have to refer to the Koran for your argument to have weight.


So I don't think its fair that you demand an exoneration of the Koran, until you show that its moral progress toward sinners, unbelievers, and enemies, is anything like the Bible's.


Oh, and by the way,

The distincction made in the Christian's interpretation of the Bible is not Literal versus non-literal, but Law versus Grace, and secondarily, Then versus Now.  The question is:  Does such a distinction exist in the Koran, or are peaceful Muslims forced to make the "literal / non-literal" compromise with their texts in order to make them peaceful?  


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


24 posted 01-18-2007 01:15 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I don't think, as a Christian yourself, you'd be willing to think that this a purely arbitary change, or even a correction of what is purely wrong.

You're preaching to the choir, Stephen. I, uh, mean almost literally.  

The OT says to kill witches. The NT doesn't say to NOT kill witches. My whole point is that your interpretation of what to actually do is the result of a much deeper understanding of God's will than is possibly available from a first read of the Bible. You've studied the book, lived the book, and unless I'm greatly mistaken have been guided in your understanding both by forces of this Earth and not of this Earth. Even were you less diligent, if absolutely nothing else, you had good Christian role models that undoubtedly influenced your beliefs.

Should I then take a quick look at the Bible and decide the role of Christianity is to seek out and destroy witches? Or should I look at you and the vast bulk of practicing Christians and accept that the way you live your lives, even though it appears to be in direct conflict with something I read, is probably a better representation of the Bible's deeper meaning?

You're essentially asking me to believe that your understanding of the Quran surpasses that of people who have lived it all their lives. You know better than they do. Me, I know absolutely nothing at all about the Quran, but if there's one thing I've learned about the Bible, it's that it's FAR from simple and anything but shallow. I've about concluded there's not a single passage that doesn't have two, three, or more levels of meaning. I haven't begun to understand its depths. And frankly, Stephen? I think I'd be a bit irritated if someone with relatively little experience tried to explain my religion to me.

Honestly, I don't know. You might well be right. But I'm going to continue to judge, be it religions or politics or personal relationships, not just by words that can so easily be twisted and misunderstood, but rather by actions. What people do has meaning.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Quran Quontroversy   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors