Ramadan

[I'm With Stupid]

Since, Islam is the most barbaric according to you, can you show one verse like this in the Qur'an ?. This is a Bible verse which Netanyahu quoted recently.
1 Samuel 15: 3 "Now go and attack the Amalekites and devote to destruction all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

Probably a Torah quote rather than a Bible quote, given that it's a Jewish president quoting it.

 

[Tuearts right boot]

Muslims loke anyone can do anything like eat pork or drink acohol, but it is haram and so they are deemed unclean for I think is 3 days where they have to pray, like my mate Dave who was a jewish but liked a bacon butty on a saturday and would say fuck it its only one day a week, it is how much yyou are deeply faithful will make you choose to follow it all to the letter.

I used to do an awful lot of work within the Jewish comminity of South Manchester and got to know a few quite well....and through talking to a few came to the conclusion that this religion malarky is useful if you work with it and bend the rules slightly.
They were supposed to walk to the synangogue on saturdays....no, they drove to just round the corner and walked the rest, a lot took both Jewish and English holidays and the vast majority, because they were canny buggers, drove big German cars, cars that kept thier value so much they actuall cost very little in the overall context.
As one of then once told me....it works !!

 

[Strangerepublic]

A typical example of cherry-picking without the context.

The previous verse 9:4
"Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]."

The next verse 9:6 "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."

The verse after - 9:7 "How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

The verse after 9:8 "How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient."

9:10 "They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors."

It is clear from the context that verse 9:5 is talking about those who violated the treaty at that time, and not just any random non-Muslim anywhere. Have you seen any prophets in the Bible making peace treaties with the non-believers ?
Actually, the command in the Bible is not to make any treaties with the pagans.
Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."

Since, Islam is the most barbaric according to you, can you show one verse like this in the Qur'an ?. This is a Bible verse which Netanyahu quoted recently.
1 Samuel 15: 3 "Now go and attack the Amalekites and devote to destruction all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

"verse 9:5 is talking about those who violated the treaty at that time, and not just any random non-Muslim anywhere"
In practise, as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis will tell you, what the verses mean and are interpreted is exactly what it says.
You might quote something from the bible, but Hindus in practically every Christian country have freedom of religion, are not pressured or persecuted for their religion, and treated with respect.

How many temples do you think there are in the middle East (even though million of "idolators" work there), and how are "idolators" treated in Pakistan or Bangladesh?

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

The prohibition on alcohol came in stages over a period of 15 years. The final verse of which was:
Qur'an 5:90 "O believers! Intoxicants, gambling, idols, and drawing lots for decisions are all evil of Satan’s handiwork. So shun them so you may be successful."

After this verse, there was a complete prohibition, and the Prophet and the earlier caliphs did punish for this sin. Jehangir or other Arab rulers are not the authorities in this matter.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 81, Number 767:

Thanks for the clarification. That’s what I thought too.

As you may have noticed, as a non-Muslim I tend to be drawn to the more irreverent representatives of and commentators on Islam, as well as the Sufi mystics, and so probably need reining in a bit in that respect.

What’s interesting about Cole is that, as one might expect from a Unitarian Universalist, he writes very sympathetically about Islam. However, that study of Prophet Muhammad I mentioned is deliberately based pretty much exclusively on the Qur’an, so much so that he is almost dismissive of the sira and hadith (if I’m reading him correctly).

He therefore reaches some other controversial conclusions, ones that may prove hard to take both for anti-Muslim bigots who think Muhammad was a warmongerer (Cole compares him to Martin Luther King Jr. at one point), and for mainstream Muslims.

In connection with all that, I have thought about contacting other academic specialists on Islam like Jonathan AC Brown (a hadith specialist), and Asma Afsaruddin (an expert on the formative period of Islam) to see what they made of it, though as far as I know it has been quite well received in those circles.

As I mentioned, the whole text can quite easily be found online if you are ever inclined to search it out.

 

[.db.]

A typical example of cherry-picking without the context.

The previous verse 9:4
"Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]."

The next verse 9:6 "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."

The verse after - 9:7 "How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

The verse after 9:8 "How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient."

9:10 "They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors."

It is clear from the context that verse 9:5 is talking about those who violated the treaty at that time, and not just any random non-Muslim anywhere. Have you seen any prophets in the Bible making peace treaties with the non-believers ?
Actually, the command in the Bible is not to make any treaties with the pagans.
Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."

Since, Islam is the most barbaric according to you, can you show one verse like this in the Qur'an ?. This is a Bible verse which Netanyahu quoted recently.
1 Samuel 15: 3 "Now go and attack the Amalekites and devote to destruction all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

Sounds like every Empire in human history: battle/war/invade/conquer… those who are subservient, make treaties and who seek protection; look after them… any who want to follow their hearts, are deficient, disobedient and who do not fear Allah*; destroy them.


*or whoever it is they need to fear (any other god, an emperor, a king).

 

[vmsuhail]

Sounds like every Empire in human history: battle/war/invade/conquer… those who are subservient, make treaties and who seek protection; look after them… any who want to follow their hearts, are deficient, disobedient and who do not fear Allah*; destroy them.


*or whoever it is they need to fear (any other god, an emperor, a king).

In the age of empires with no UN/League of Nations around and no geographical boundaries or the ideas of a nation-state, treaties are the way to go. There is a clear emphasis on honouring the contracts and not being the transgressor.

 

[vmsuhail]

"verse 9:5 is talking about those who violated the treaty at that time, and not just any random non-Muslim anywhere"
In practise, as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis will tell you, what the verses mean and are interpreted is exactly what it says.
You might quote something from the bible, but Hindus in practically every Christian country have freedom of religion, are not pressured or persecuted for their religion, and treated with respect.

How many temples do you think there are in the middle East (even though million of "idolators" work there), and how are "idolators" treated in Pakistan or Bangladesh?

Yes, Christians have been doing well and Muslims are lacking behind. Sorry state of our affairs in many countries. Regardless, it doesn't change my opinion on verse 9:5 and the surrounding contex or how its better than the war and treaty laws in the Bible, which was the original point I was responding to.

 

[vmsuhail]

Thanks for the clarification. That’s what I thought too.

As you may have noticed, as a non-Muslim I tend to be drawn to the more irreverent representatives of and commentators on Islam, as well as the Sufi mystics, and so probably need reining in a bit in that respect.

What’s interesting about Cole is that, as one might expect from a Unitarian Universalist, he writes very sympathetically about Islam. However, that study of Prophet Muhammad I mentioned is deliberately based pretty much exclusively on the Qur’an, so much so that he is almost dismissive of the sira and hadith (if I’m reading him correctly).

He therefore reaches some other controversial conclusions, ones that may prove hard to take both for anti-Muslim bigots who think Muhammad was a warmongerer (Cole compares him to Martin Luther King Jr. at one point), and for mainstream Muslims.

In connection with all that, I have thought about contacting other academic specialists on Islam like Jonathan AC Brown (a hadith specialist), and Asma Afsaruddin (an expert on the formative period of Islam) to see what they made of it, though as far as I know it has been quite well received in those circles.

As I mentioned, the whole text can quite easily be found online if you are ever inclined to search it out.

The hadith and sira are a huge body of literature, it's naive to dismiss them altogether because they were not "written down" at the time of it happening. Sure, the oral traditions will get interpolated and exaggerated over time, but our scholars have done a lot of hadith analysis and grading during the times they were written down.
I have listened to some of Jonathan Brown's lectures, but I mostly only read/listen to mainstream theologians.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters (kill non-muslims) wherever you find them and take them captive, and beseige them, and prepare for them each ambus. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful!

Qur'an chapter 9.5.

Like all man made religion Islam is a curse on mankind. But, of the 3 main abrahamic faiths its teaching are the most by far the most barbaric.

This may surprise you but a century ago, Western scholars of Islam were commending Islam for its tolerance:

First of all, here is Hamilton Gibb:

“It possesses a magnificent tradition of inter-racial understanding and cooperation. No other society has such a record of success uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity, and of endeavours, so many and so various races of mankind.”

Then there is the assessment of Sir Thomas Arnold:

“On the whole, unbelievers have enjoyed under Muhammadan rule a measure of toleration, the like of which is not to be found in Europe until quite modern times. Forcible conversion was forbidden, in accordance with the precepts of the Quran… The very existence of so many Christian sects and communities in countries that have been for centuries under Muhammadan rule is an abiding testimony to the toleration they have enjoyed, and shows that the persecutions they have from time to time been called upon to endure at the hands of bigots and fanatics, have been excited by some special and local circumstances rather than inspired by a settled principle of intolerance… But such oppression is wholly without the sanction of Muhammadan law, either religious or civil”.

More recently, Bernard Lewis (certainly not a writer who could be said to be overly sympathetic to the faith) has written this:

‘Until the seventeenth century, there can be no doubt that, all in all, the treatment by Muslim governments and populations of those who believed otherwise was more tolerant and respectful than was normal in Europe… there is nothing in Islamic history to compare with the massacres and expulsions, the inquisitions and persecutions that Christians habitually inflicted on non-Christians, and still more on each other. In the lands of Islam, persecution was the exception; in Christendom sadly, it was often the norm.’

Of course, since then we have seen the advent of Wahhabism/Salafi-jihadism and its dissemination from Saudi Arabia, the rise of the Taliban, as well as the Iranian revolution which brought to power a Shia theocracy that is similarly warped.

Here’s William Dalrymple on the former:

“It is no coincidence that Saudi Arabia provided 15 of the 19 hijackers on 11 September. Ever since the Thirties, the Saudi regime has vigorously exported Wahhabi Islam, the most severe, puritanical incarnation of a religion which historically has been remarkable for its tolerance and syncretism.The Saudis have used their oil wealth to try to kill off tolerant forms of Islam. Saudi money financed the most extreme Jihadis fighting in Afghanistan and the camps in which they were trained. It was these camps that produced the Afghan Arabs who form the hard core of al-Qaeda as well as a myriad of other similar organisations. Yet America, dependent on Saudi oil, continues to ignore the culpability of the Saudis, and allows them to suppress human rights as brutally as the Taliban…The Saudis now dominate as much as 90 per cent of Arabic language newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, radio and TV. They have also promoted the mass radicalisation of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kurdistan by funding the hard-core Wahhabi, Salafi and Deobandi schools that now dominate education there.”

Given the extent to which the Saudis and Iranians have succeeded in hijacking the faith, it is perhaps unsurprising that many have come to perceive Islam negatively.

As for Qur’an 9:5, in mainstream Islamic teaching that verse is understood to be specifically and only to do with Muhammad’s Meccan enemies and has no wider remit. In short, the nascent community of monotheists in Medina were faced with an existential threat. If they hadn’t fought, they would have been wiped out.

Of course, there is a lot more to all this than just that. So to save time and this reply becoming even longer, I have discussed Islamic teaching about war and peacemaking in the context of the Palestine-Israel conflict here (but be warned - the blog entry is about 10,000 words long):

JUST WAR THEORY, ISLAMIC TEACHING ABOUT WAR AND PEACEMAKING, TERRORISM, AND THE PALESTINE-ISRAEL CONFLICT: A REVIEW OF STEPHEN LAW (ed.) ISRAEL, PALESTINE AND TERROR. – Course notes and revision materials for students of A Level Religious Studies/Phi

 

[calumdown]

This may surprise you but a century ago, Western scholars of Islam were commending Islam for its tolerance:

First of all, here is Hamilton Gibb:

“It possesses a magnificent tradition of inter-racial understanding and cooperation. No other society has such a record of success uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity, and of endeavours, so many and so various races of mankind.”

Then there is the assessment of Sir Thomas Arnold:

“On the whole, unbelievers have enjoyed under Muhammadan rule a measure of toleration, the like of which is not to be found in Europe until quite modern times. Forcible conversion was forbidden, in accordance with the precepts of the Quran… The very existence of so many Christian sects and communities in countries that have been for centuries under Muhammadan rule is an abiding testimony to the toleration they have enjoyed, and shows that the persecutions they have from time to time been called upon to endure at the hands of bigots and fanatics, have been excited by some special and local circumstances rather than inspired by a settled principle of intolerance… But such oppression is wholly without the sanction of Muhammadan law, either religious or civil”.

More recently, Bernard Lewis (certainly not a writer who could be said to be overly sympathetic to the faith) has written this:

‘Until the seventeenth century, there can be no doubt that, all in all, the treatment by Muslim governments and populations of those who believed otherwise was more tolerant and respectful than was normal in Europe… there is nothing in Islamic history to compare with the massacres and expulsions, the inquisitions and persecutions that Christians habitually inflicted on non-Christians, and still more on each other. In the lands of Islam, persecution was the exception; in Christendom sadly, it was often the norm.’

Of course, since then we have seen the advent of Wahhabism/Salafi-jihadism and its dissemination from Saudi Arabia, the rise of the Taliban, as well as the Iranian revolution which brought to power a Shia theocracy that is similarly warped.

Here’s William Dalrymple on the former:

“It is no coincidence that Saudi Arabia provided 15 of the 19 hijackers on 11 September. Ever since the Thirties, the Saudi regime has vigorously exported Wahhabi Islam, the most severe, puritanical incarnation of a religion which historically has been remarkable for its tolerance and syncretism.The Saudis have used their oil wealth to try to kill off tolerant forms of Islam. Saudi money financed the most extreme Jihadis fighting in Afghanistan and the camps in which they were trained. It was these camps that produced the Afghan Arabs who form the hard core of al-Qaeda as well as a myriad of other similar organisations. Yet America, dependent on Saudi oil, continues to ignore the culpability of the Saudis, and allows them to suppress human rights as brutally as the Taliban…The Saudis now dominate as much as 90 per cent of Arabic language newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, radio and TV. They have also promoted the mass radicalisation of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kurdistan by funding the hard-core Wahhabi, Salafi and Deobandi schools that now dominate education there.”

Given the extent to which the Saudis and Iranians have succeeded in hijacking the faith, it is perhaps unsurprising that many have come to perceive Islam negatively.

As for Qur’an 9:5, in mainstream Islamic teaching that verse is understood to be specifically and only to do with Muhammad’s Meccan enemies and has no wider remit. In short, the nascent community of monotheists in Medina were faced with an existential threat. If they hadn’t fought, they would have been wiped out.

Of course, there is a lot more to all this than just that. So to save time and this reply becoming even longer, I have discussed Islamic teaching about war and peacemaking in the context of the Palestine-Israel conflict here (but be warned - the blog entry is about 10,000 words long):

JUST WAR THEORY, ISLAMIC TEACHING ABOUT WAR AND PEACEMAKING, TERRORISM, AND THE PALESTINE-ISRAEL CONFLICT: A REVIEW OF STEPHEN LAW (ed.) ISRAEL, PALESTINE AND TERROR. – Course notes and revision materials for students of A Level Religious Studies/Phi

i wouldn't have minded how much longer your reply was.
very interesting reading.
thank you.

the relatively recent hijacking of islam by extremists has strongly tainted the understanding of normal everyday muslims by non-muslims and the media help promote the hatred.

i live in a muslim town that has a jewish synagogue and christian church,
and both have cemeteries.
there is no intolerance here of other people's faiths or for that matter atheisms.

and i'm pretty sure when the muslims ruled spain
(or al-andalus as they called it)
there was a similar tolerance of all non-muslims,
until the catholics turned up and murdered not only muslims but other christians, including many other catholics.

for the record, i'm not even remotely religious.

 

[halfmist]

View attachment 148399
We like this post

That would sum up my luck.

 

[calumdown]

A couple of (Moroccan) friends bought some hash in Chefchaouen, smoked it, and crashed out for 8 hours. In the meantime, I went to hospital to get my arm x-rayed because I thought I'd broken it earlier. They didn't charge me, which was nice.

if the hash they bought wiped them out for 8hrs it was indica.
the locals who speak english jokingly call it in-da-couch.

yep,
i had to nip into the emergency hossie last year,
they saw me immediately, unlike a uk a+e
and charged me £3 for my consultation.
and i know other foreigners who have barely been charged for fairly extensive treatment.

 

[calumdown]

Yes Iv been there before loved it! Planning to come back for the gnawa festival at some point.

Been to Essaouira a few times.
Lovely place, a bit windy though.
Always enjoyed being there.
I fancy visiting when the Gnaoua music festival is on, I think it would be a fantastic experience.

the festival is amazing,
but there are many many more visitors than available beds to rent so the prices are skyhigh.

if i sub-let my apartment for a week it'd pay my rent for 2months.

 

[Blue and true]

What a waste of time

Are you a Muslim?

 

[mexico1970]

Are you a Muslim?

 

[calumdown]

There's lots of french living there too right?

there are some, and certainly a lot of tourists
but it's an odd one here with the frenchies...

there are always exceptions and some of them are sound,
but in general the french aren't particularly liked here.
they have a remarkably superior attitude towards moroccans.
they talk down to them, at times it's quite shocking.
they still think they own the fucking place.

i can testify to it..

i know a couple of amazigh lads (the local indigenous folk)
who stand in the street touting tourists for a rooftop restaurant.
on occasion i have been stood chatting with them,
and was really surprised by the attitude of the french who spoke to them.

the french are the main tourists,
5 flights a week to the small airport here
(compared with not so many from spain, england, etc),
so naturally the local shopkeepers and people in general address you in french first of all.
i get called monsieur all the time,
but when i explain in english that i'm not french they raise a smile.

french is the business language.
pretty much all official paperwork is written in french and it's tough titty if the locals don't understand it.

most youngsters have some english and want to talk it to better their grasp of it,
which makes it difficult for me to better my darija (maroc arabic).

i used to live in lyon, france,
so my french isn't too awful,
but i pretend i can't speak it here.

 

[idahoblues]

Are you a Muslim?

No

 

[calumdown]

Been to Essaouira a few times.
Lovely place, a bit windy though.

the wind is one of the reasons why i like it
(its nickname is the windy city for good reason).

in summer it keeps everything cooler and bearable.

and when the wind is really up,
boy is the atlantic ocean a sight to behold.

the town was built as a walled fortress to stop invaders,
and the spot was specifically chosen because of the rocky outcrops in the surrounding ocean that would've made it difficult to approach by sea.
those rocks provide a wondrous spectacle as the waves crash over them.

i feel very fortunate to witness its glory every day

 

[blueinsa]

adingdong?

 

[Blue and true]

No

Not a waste of time for you then