Hi Maming

You are talking about interpretation of a text. You are right. It is possible to interpret the Quran in many different ways, and there are several splintered groups because they have interpreted it in different ways. Therefore, the moot question is, what then is the right interpretation?

Any quranic verse should only be interpreted in the light of the prophet’s teachings. Why do I say this? Because Quran says so to prophet Mohammed (SAW).

Quran: 16:44. And We have also sent down unto you the reminder and the advice, that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought.

Therefore, the verse in question should be explained in the light of prophet’s teachings. From the life of the prophet it is clear that you should kill only those you make war against you. And not innocent people, Muslims or Non-Muslims.

The quranic text is very clear that you should fight only those who fight you. If you argue otherwise, you will have to produce your proof from hadith where the prophet commanded his followers to kill innocents.

Watchman.

you are not supposed to pick out a sentence from here and there in the quran and then make a blanket statement. You have to read it in its context. If you read this chapter from the beginning, you will know that it has a very specific context and it’s talking about the changing dynamics between Muslims and non-Muslims following a treaty (the treaty of Hudaibiya) and the non-muslims side was breaking it regularly. They were making a mockery of the treaty, breaking it when it suited them and adhering to it when it suited them. The verses in this chapter are declaring the end of all such nonsense and that muslims are not supposed to put up with it anymore. If you read from the beginning, you will understand.

If Muslims had understood this verse as you did, then you wouldn’t find 10 million Coptic Christians living in Egypt today, and the millions more living in Syria, Palestine and other Muslim lands. They have been living CLOSE to with muslims for centuries, and yet have thrived, prospered and flourished.

Coming to the hadith you quoted. I don’t know what your level of knowledge in the sciences of hadith is? But at the bare minimum, all jurists are agreed, that you can’t just quote one hadith and derive a ruling from it. You have to analyze all of the prophet’s statements and deeds on the subject before coming to a conclusion.

There are loads of hadith which I can show you where the prophet (PBUH) forbade the killing of women and children. Here is one quick example.

It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children. [Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4320]

The hadith you quoted comes without a proper context. We don’t know what the situation was at that moment. Scholars analyzed all the hadith on the subject and say that as there are very clear injunctions from the prophet forbidding the killing of women and children, this hadith has to be seen as a permissibility in war situations where you don’t have any other option. Such as, if you don’t attack considering women and children, you face the threat of obliteration. This is an acceptable standard even in our modern day warfare.

Just got one word in on the OP and: Nope I would not believe that at all!

Watchman

Therefore, are you saying that context should never be invoked in understanding a text? What would you say if I picked out this line from your post – “I argue that quran is not preaching violence...” and told you, thanks for arguing in favor of me, would that be acceptable to you?

Of course not. You would tell me that I am quoting out of context because that was not your argument, but mine which you were only cutting and pasting. Right?

That’s why i say context is important in understanding any text. You can’t question the very use of context in interpreting a text. You can only question if the alleged context is valid or not.

If you say the context I am giving is wrong, you will have to show me how. This holds true to not just atheists, but muslims or anybody else who attribute a particular meaning to any verse in the quran.

Therefore, showing examples of people who have understood a verse in a particular sense is not good enough... show me how they have arrived at that interpretation and I will show why that interpretation is wrong.

This is basic common sense. If Maoists interpret the communist ideology in a violent manner, would that mean communism is violent ideology? People of religion mostly don’t like the communist ideology, and would like to attribute violence to communism. Therefore, that would make all people of religion plus atheists (maoists) who think communism is violent. This would be a huge majority of people who interpret communism in violent terms... does that make it true?

Your argument that athiests and some muslims see violence in the quran... and therefore there must be some truth in it... is only like my example above.

You have conceded that verse 2:216 does not say anything about war for the sake of islamic rule. So do you agree there are no verses that exhort fighting for power? Or give me proof.

And then you say that sura 107 is not harsh enough. Look at it from the point of a believer. When God says, “Woe” we take it extremely seriously. And the sura asks, “Have you seen the one who rejects religion? He is the one who repels the orphan and doesn’t feed the hungry.”

As a believer, it sends shivers down my spine that i shall be considered by god as a rejecter of his religion when i don’t feed the hungry or care for the orphan. This is extremely harsh, for me. When you look at Quran as the rantings of a mortal, yes, you would not find it harsh.

And then you say that you didn’t find the wordings “Irrespective of faith” in the sura. When the sura keeps the condition open, “feed the hungry and care for the orphan,” and doesn’t specify anywhere in the entire sura (CONTEXT) that it’s talking only about Muslims, it has to be understood that it’s about all the orphans and the hungry. Why... it’s not only irrespective of faith, but also color, nationality, gender or what have you.

If you argue that it is ‘respective of faith’ then show me how... from the CONTEXT.

And then you accused me of downplaying the bellicose verses. As explained above, I am not downplaying or playing up any one verse over the other. I am only saying understand each verse in its right context.

And then you said why “YOU THINK” the early caliphs left the christians alone. I don’t have to accept your opinions... give proofs.

Yes, christians were a majority in Egypt before Islam. Today, they are a minority. So, it’s obvious that they have converted in vast numbers. Does that mean they were forcibly converted? If you say so, then give your proofs.

Islam (weather you like it or not) has attracted people in all ages, including today. Today, the largest muslim population in the world is in Indonesia. Which Islamic army went there? Islam is spreading, even as you talk, in the US and Europe... and this despite all the negative press it is getting, thanks to efforts of people like you. Is anybody forcing them to convert? If not, then why are they converting?

So, Islam’s power to influence the hearts of people is a fact. This is what happened in Egypt too.

And today, there are 8 million of them, which is 10% of the population. A sizeable number. And to think this minority was spared by blood thirsty muslims... in spite of 3 centuries of crusades... i am sure you must be well aware of the attrocities perpetrated by crusaders against Muslims... when the coptics could have easily become the target of Muslim rage... it’s surprising no such thing happened.

And then you said about Jizya. Jizya is a tax for non Muslims, because they are exempt from Zakat. Which is Muslim tax. Therefore, there is taxation for both.

I didn’t understand your points about pious and intelligent muslim warriors... and what you meant by “causing disruptions in their own realms.” When you clarify it, I will answer that.

And then about persecution complex. I raised the examples of budhists, hindus and communists... only to show that no group (religious or atheists) is exempt from violence. Violence seems to be part of human nature... and so to blame it all on a particular scripture is unfair.

However, like so many other groups in the world, muslims in many parts of the world are being persecuted. That’s a fact. If what’s happening to Palestinians at the hands of zionists, supported by the US, is not persecution, then what is?

And to bill it as ‘persecution complex’ is misrepresenting.

You said about muslims joining fascist. Yes. And it should only be seen as the blunder of state in a geopolitically expedient situation... didn’t communists align with capitalist west... does that mean that their ideologies are the same?

Science of hadith.... i had explained to you what i mean by science of hadith... it’s the commonly used phrase to indicate ‘methodology of analyzing hadith.”

You have repeated your assertions of hadith being divinations and interpretations... but as you have not furnished any proof or explanation for your claims... and since you have postponed my offer for a debate on the subject to a later date for more pressing questions... i don’t think there’s anything to reply there.

Valiya..

Sorry if my brevity strains your understanding ... but I am a little pushed at present ...as well as collating for a more in depth thread I have planned for after all the unpleasantness of Christmas is over.

But I'll try to kep this thread going.... as you are so insistent....

Verse 2.190 -191 .....

This is , is it not , a verse used to imply the defensive characteristic of Islam ...."but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."

And yet its true context (as you are so keen on context) is that Mohammed is exhorting his followers to advance on Mecca.

True he tries to justify the breaking of the "no attacking " rule by claiming dispensation on the grounds that the Meccans were trying to exclude the Muslims from Mecca.....

BUT when push comes to shove....Its the Muslims who are going on the attack.

next

I said I did not believe your assertion ," “the Islamic methodology for the validity of any action. You have to produce your proofs for everything.”

and I asked for proof.

Next....

"It’s common sense that when there is NO clause that restricts meaning, the sentence has to be understood in generic terms. "

NO ...no it isn't.....

"If I say Africans are dark skinned… it simply means all African… I don’t have to say “All Africans irrespective of region, creed, tribe etc.”

No but you should mention those Africans of lighter complexion. Ethiopians , White South Africans ,the Boers ,a few Zimbabweans etc. or your statement that ALL Africans are dark skinned becomes a lie.

Next...

It was your post on the 16/12/14 that first raised 107...

and then on the 18/12/14 you added ....
"As a believer, it sends shivers down my spine that i shall be considered by god as a rejecter of his religion when i don’t feed the hungry or care for the orphan."

(Just to help you out....Its ok....there is no god.... yours nor any one elses ....so stop worrying about being punished ...just do the right thing [feed the hungry] for its own sake ... not for fear of any punishment nor in hopes of any reward)

Next...
The Copts....no you did not "dismiss any proofs" you failed to mention anything at all...just an assertion....hence I posted proofs because.......? well one of us had to.

"It only shows that as a rule Muslims never interpreted the verses in question as you do."

No...it shows that occasionally SOME Muslims do.

Finally regarding the Wiki Info....

Undoubtedly the Christian Encyclopedia has an "agenda".... (
Although the only specific claim I can find is that they overestimate Christian numbers ... there does not seem to be any claim of underestimating or otherwise "fiddleing" the figures for Islam.)

Just as the Guiness Book of Records has...... Selling Stouts & Ales...

and Just as both the Quran and the Hadiths have ,marketing a faith.?

Watchman
Sorry if my post persuaded you for a reply during your crunch times… you could have taken your time… i would have waited.

Your reply to verse 2:190…

You seem to be caught up in another misunderstanding about Islam. There is no such thing as a “no attack” rule. What it says is that you can fight (in attack or in defense) in order to eliminate injustice such as persecution and so on.

If you have been thrown out of your homes unjustly… you can fight (attack) to regain your lost rights. But that’s it… “Allah loveth not aggressors” beyond that.

I don’t think that it is unjust to fight for your rights by any standards.

Next… you said you don’t believe my assertion on the need for proof for validity of any action in Islam.

I am surprised that you are not aware of it. In fact it is such a basic thing in Islam that it’s one of the very few things that every group of every color and stripe agree unanimously. Proofs.

Why do you think the Science of Hadith developed in the first place? Because nothing gets accepted without proof.

Since you have asked for proof for the need for proof, here it is:

Quran 4:59 says that if Muslims disagree over anything it should be referred to Allah and his Messenger.

The best way to settle a dispute is to show a how Quran or hadith views it… that’s what we mean by proof.

Next.... about the example of dark skinned Africans.

I found your argument on this devious. You are picking the logical fallacy in the example I gave. Yes, there may be Africans of lighter skins… but if I said “Africans have dark skin” and don’t add any restrictive clauses, then it should be understood as all Africans. May be that’s a logically wrong statement… but linguistically it should mean all Africans.

If your teacher told you, “distribute these sweets to your classmates…” would you assume that he only meant students in the back row, or students who are Christians or whatever? No. Because, if your teacher does not specifically restrict the meaning, it should be understood to mean all students in your class. Common sense.

Next... about sura 107.

I gave the example of this sura to point out that quran has verses of mercy and kindness… and harshly condemns those who don’t show these qualities.

And then you said, it’s really not that harsh. That’s when I demonstrated to you how it is harsh from a believer’s point of view. For which your response was a tongue-in-cheek comment about the belief. This was sort of shifting the goals posts. Because it diverts from the ‘harshness’ angle, which was at the core of that discussion.

Next… your good intentioned advice to me on stop worrying about punishment…

But we know man is inherently selfish… he needs very high levels of motivation if he has to be made to do things that don’t benefit him. If you have to make a man part with his money – to help the poor or for whatever reason – he needs a strong motivation. Belief in the hereafter gives that motivation.

If I don’t believe in God, why should I feed the hungry? Give me a reason.

Next... about copts

You didn’t respond to the principle I stated, “the one bringing the charge has to bring the proof too.” This is an accepted standard in any court in the world. Don’t you agree? Then, you are the one who is bringing the charge against islam… you should prove it too.

So you are not being generous by bringing the proof. That was your obligation.

However, your proof doesn’t stand the scrutiny… it’s not showing that any caliph had undertaken persecution as a state policy… only some odd events in our current times by some groups.

It doesn’t answer the moot questions: how come the coptics survived centuries of persecution (if there was such a thing) and still continue to live in huge numbers (8 million) in Egypt, and millions more in other Muslim lands?

Doesn’t that clearly show that persecution was not the norm? And the examples you are showing are only the exceptions.

Next… about Wiki info…

If you know anything about Christian evangelism, they consider Islam their biggest enemy… it has been going on since crusades… and misinformation about islam is one of their main methods. Quran attacks their beliefs straightforward… which obviously may not go down well with them… they have an axe to grind against Islam.

While Guinness books… I don’t have any reasons to believe have any ulterior gains by supporting Islam? So, to the extent about conversions… I think you can trust them.

BTW… I am going on a short vacation, until New Year… so I will be offline for the next few days… so no hurries in sending your reply… take your time… enjoy your holidays.