"Islam: What the West needs to know"

Zascar

Wikipedia:

Islam: What the West Needs to Know is a documentary film produced by Quixotic Media. According to the producers, the film is an examination of Islam and its violence towards the non-muslims. It features discussions using passages from religious texts and includes commentaries by Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bat Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and Walid Shoebat.

It argues that Islam is a violent religion bent on world domination. The documentary uses passages from the canonical texts of Islam as its source material

Google Video Link

I saw this film the other day and was pretty shocked by it.

I'm just wondering what people of the Islamic faith themselves think of this - do you disagree with message of the movie or what are you feelings?

c-note

i'm not religious but i think there are about 2 billion muslims in the world (thats 1 in 3 people in the world)

if their religion demanded they be violent and hate/kill non muslims i'm pretty sure we'd be f***ed already.

yes there are the minority but i think we should invent a new name for them to avoid confusing them with the vast vast majority of peacful people who are also muslims.

i havnt seen the documentary so i cant comment on whats in it. but remember christianity has a pretty brutal and bloody history.

CDfm

Its kinda obvious that Muslims have an intense dislike of the west. Its traditions have territorial conquests of others.

So whats wrong with acknowledging it.

,8,1

Its kinda obvious that Muslims have an intense dislike of the west. Its traditions have territorial conquests of others.

So whats wrong with acknowledging it.

Can that not apply to the West in the past and the present too, however?

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:5

CDfm

,8,1 wrote: »

Can that not apply to the West in the past and the present too, however?

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:5

The west isnt generic.

In Ireland we didnt exactly go out and conquer anyone?

The reality is they hate non-muslims.

The Mad Hatter

CDfm wrote: »

In Ireland we didnt exactly go out and conquer anyone?

Only because we spent centuries getting rid of people who'd conquered us.

panda100

It was quite an intresting documentary,if not a little sensationalist and focusing soley on negative aspects of a religion. If you went through the Old Testament or New Testament you could also cherry pic some quite horrific parables and teachings.

Also, it made me sick at the beginning watching the main perpetrators of Islamaphobia, Bush and Blair, talking of how much they 'respected' islam. I had a laugh at Bush when he said, "It (islam) is practisced by millions of people in countries that America counts as friends". So these 'friends' would be Saudia Arabia but not Palestine?

Personally I think people only turn to extreme acts of violence when they have nothing else to lose. Western countries have been exploiting the middle East,India and African countries for years so finally the people in these countries are rising up and rebelling. I think the acts of violence have little to do with islam and more to do with pure frustration from people who see the vast inequalities between those living in the West compared to the rest of the world.

shqipshume

We have vast majority of Muslims in some countries such as Asian and kosova and Turkish etc..... Who in majority do not wish any ill harm to non Muslims.As they are themselves more modern country and do not follow the Koran and its writings to extent of murder and terror.
The people they do use from Arab or majority Muslim lands are desperate and poor and are promised a good life for their families after they have given up their lives for Allah and ofc the to go to paradise.They have no value on life of anyone in the world.
They are brain washed.
Some one once said to me how are the doctors brain washed they are intelligent.It doesn't make a difference they are brought up with hate in their hearts most.Others caught at weak points in their lives and others just plain and simple are headcases who believe they are the right and everyone else is wrong.
Luckily they are stuck where they live and majority of them are only fighting with their neighbours.
Unfortunatly there is alot more of them then we know.

grizzly

Western media is driven by Christian, Jewish and secular forces. They always tend to misrepresent Muslims. The response from Muslims which tends to be hostility, which compounds the negative image of Muslims. The response that is given the limelight is not that of the majority, with more moderate views, but those with the more extreme views. It generates more drama for the press and sells more copy.

CDfm

panda100 wrote: »

Western countries have been exploiting the middle East,India and African countries for years so finally the people in these countries are rising up and rebelling. I think the acts of violence have little to do with islam and more to do with pure frustration from people who see the vast inequalities between those living in the West compared to the rest of the world.

You should say some western countries - and lots of the inequalities in living standards are down to their own economies.

Using the West as a generic term is what they do.You cant include Ireland or Poland or Switzerland or even the USA as colonial powers.

You cant blame a person for doing business with whoever is in government. Is the West responsible for Zimbabwe.So its their own intermnal governments they should blame.

BuffyBot

The west isnt generic.

Yet billions of Muslims, dispersed across the globe, somehow are generic? That seems to be what you are implying.

CDfm

BuffyBot wrote: »

Yet billions of Muslims, dispersed across the globe, somehow are generic? That seems to be what you are implying.

i am not really. But of course the communities here done very little to explain their ethos.

wes

Its a pro War on Terror propaganda film. It has about as much value as the rantings of Osama, saying the "West" is evil and that kind of nonsense.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

Its kinda obvious that Muslims have an intense dislike of the west. Its traditions have territorial conquests of others.

As many countries with muslim populations have been the subject of colonisation at the hands of Western 'Empires', its hardly suprising that some harbour resentment towards their former oppressors. And considering that the West still occassionally interferes to take advantage of their resources (Iran, Iraq) its not suprising it remains somewhat of an open wound.

Zascar wrote:

Islam: What the West Needs to Know is a documentary film produced by Quixotic Media

.....which, had it been about Jews, would have been blown out of the water. It concentrates on the worst possible reading of Islam and its scriptures. A disgusting piece of trash, created by cranks, bigots and frauds.

Spencer has made a 30 year career out of fear-mongering about Islam.

Bat Y'eor is - much like Spencer - a cherry picker of history. Though her bigotry is perhaps the result of some personal experiences, this shouldn't excuse its extent -

Johann Hari, a British journalist, argues that "There are intellectuals on the British right who are propagating a conspiracy theory about Muslims that teeters very close to being a 21st century Protocols of the Elders of Mecca" and that Bat Ye'or is a "scholar" who argues that Europe is on the brink of being transformed into a conquered continent called "Eurabia".[44]
Israeli peace activist Adam Keller, in a letter of protest sent on June 2, 2008 to the Israeli publisher of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, wrote:

In 1886 the French antisemite Edouard Drumont published 'La France Juive' (Jewish France), creating the false nightmarish image of a France dominated by Jews, and sowing the poisonous seeds which came to fruit when Vichy French officials collaborated in the mass muder of French Jewry. [...] 'Bat Ye'or' follows in notorious footsteps indeed by creating the false nightmarish image of a Europe dominated by Arabs and Muslims.[45]

According to David Aaronovitch:

[Eurabia] is a concept created by a writer called Bat Ye’or who, according to the publicity for her most recent book, "chronicles Arab determination to subdue Europe as a cultural appendage to the Muslim world — and Europe's willingness to be so subjugated". This, as students of conspiracy theories will recognise, is the addition of the Sad Dupes thesis to the Enemy Within idea.

Were it not for the need for the American right to create 'intellectual' justification for its aggression, this stuff would be safely unknown and on the fringes, with the Jew-bashing and 'Black' hating crap.
Shoebat....Dear o dear....Pops up on WorldNetDaily the odd time, which is a sure sign theres something wrong....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Shoebat

Serge Trifkovic. A true moral champion. Former spokesman for Radovan Karadzic, who is now up on War Crimes charges. Denier of most of Serb crimes in the Yugoslav conflict, including Srebrenicia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Trifkovic#cite_note-0
Obviously the kind of man whose opinion on Muslims you'd trust.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

As many countries with muslim populations have been the subject of colonisation at the hands of Western 'Empires', its hardly suprising that some harbour resentment towards their former oppressors. And considering that the West still occassionally interferes to take advantage of their resources (Iran, Iraq) its not suprising it remains somewhat of an open wound.



.....which, had it been about Jews, would have been blown out of the water. It concentrates on the worst possible reading of Islam and its scriptures. A disgusting piece of trash, created by cranks, bigots and frauds.

but this is double standards - lots of muslim extremists use the same language - and why should we suffer physically or economically for it.

we too have rights as do lots of other countries who didnt have colonies or were themselves colonies

they should cut us some slack

the attack on holiday making aussies proved what other then the attacks are indiscriminate

wes

CDfm wrote: »

the attack on holiday making aussies proved what other then the attacks are indiscriminate

No, it wasn't. They were attacking what they would see as a symbol "Western decadence". They were attacking a symbol more than anything else. Also, the group that carried it was a local Indonesian group, that has there own aim's and problems with there government.

There are many different groups that are doing what they are doing for many different reasons, some purely religous, some due to nationalism mixed with religion and many other reasons. Among the extremists groups on there own, there are huge differences between them, some are violent, some try to engage with a polticial process and everything in between. These groups are not one group, they are many groups and need to be looked at indiviudally to get any meaningful understanding of them.

Now, to say that the actions of a Indonesian groups proves anything (in a general sense) is riduculous. They are one group that are representative of only themselves, they aren't even representative of extremists in general, as they come in many flavours.

**EDIT**
Having said that, these groups do sometimes have similarities. These can't be denied, but the similarties in some cases, does not make them one group.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

but this is double standards - lots of muslim extremists use the same language - and why should we suffer physically or economically for it.

I have no idea what you mean. Please explain.

CDfm wrote: »

we too have rights as do lots of other countries who didnt have colonies or were themselves colonies.

Indeed we do. However I don't see what that has to do with the vilification of Muslims, usually in order to justify the sequestering of their nations resources.

CDfm wrote: »

they should cut us some slack

the attack on holiday making aussies proved what other then the attacks are indiscriminate

Small groups in Indonesia and elsewhere are hardly indicative of Islam as a whole.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean. Please explain.



Indeed we do. However I don't see what that has to do with the vilification of Muslims, usually in order to justify the sequestering of their nations resources.



Small groups in Indonesia and elsewhere are hardly indicative of Islam as a whole.

what i mean is that the muslim organisations and right wing western politicians use similar language.

i dont see why it should not influence us -especially when you have the level of integration in the Uk. Indonesia and then Ireland -why not by your logic.

the_syco

panda100 wrote: »

I think the acts of violence have little to do with islam

Didn't see it, but if it's the film I'm thinking of, this is the point of the film: to rename the people using islam to wage war on people to something else.

Most of the west see's Islam as the terrorist religon, instead of one of peace, and not one twisted by fanitics to brainwash people into following their lead.

The prophet dude was a warrior, but he was kind to those he captured. Not like the fanitics* who'll chop your head off on TV.

*I think I'm using the wrong phrase here

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

what i mean is that the muslim organisations and right wing western politicians use similar language..

So a minority muslim group(s) happens to hold some views that coincide with that of the (presumably far) Right in Europe....So what, exactly? Bin Laden was a big Arsenal fan. Apart from comedy value, what relevance does that have? And seeing as such groups are a minority, how therefore can this rather nasty film have any real grounds for castigating Islam as a whole?

CDfm wrote: »

i dont see why it should not influence us -especially when you have the level of integration in the Uk. Indonesia and then Ireland -why not by your logic.

Indonesia is a predominantly muslim country, so I fail to see how "integration" figures into anything there. Your point is far from clear.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

So a minority muslim group(s) happens to hold some views that coincide with that of the (presumably far) Right in Europe....So what, exactly? Bin Laden was a big Arsenal fan. Apart from comedy value, what relevance does that have? And seeing as such groups are a minority, how therefore can this rather nasty film have any real grounds for castigating Islam as a whole?



Indonesia is a predominantly muslim country, so I fail to see how "integration" figures into anything there. Your point is far from clear.

like it or not this and the bombing in Madrid carried messages to the world.

and they have affected law abiding muslims.

In the Case of Indonesia it ruined their tourist industry and in the case of Madrid and Edinburgh it made life more difficult for their muslim populations.

Living in London in the late 80s and early 90s was no fun if you were Irish -so the bombers are prepared to inflict collateral damage on their fellow muslims.Thats not my responsibility its a decision the bombers made and what you may define as racist others might define as prudent.

studiorat

Nodin wrote: »

Indonesia is a predominantly muslim country, so I fail to see how "integration" figures into anything there.

It should be noted that Islam in Indonesia is quite different from Islam as we see it in the Middle East.

Dunno if the West needs to know that or not but there you are...

philologos

I think this documentary has a clear agenda, and if this were a documentary on Christianity rather than Islam I think I would be rather opposed to a documentary featuring solely those who oppose it. Figures such as Walid Shoebat are clear figures who have converted on Islam. It would be fair if the other side had more of a say in the actual discourse and discussion of the film. As I say I think it is up to Islam to defend itself, and up to Christianity to defend itself as well as all other traditions, but I'm not sure of unfair attacks.

Perhaps I am wrong, I have only watched a small part of this on Youtube. If so I'm willing to accept corrections.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

like it or not this and the bombing in Madrid carried messages to the world.

and they have affected law abiding muslims.

In the Case of Indonesia it ruined their tourist industry and in the case of Madrid and Edinburgh it made life more difficult for their muslim populations.

Living in London in the late 80s and early 90s was no fun if you were Irish -so the bombers are prepared to inflict collateral damage on their fellow muslims.Thats not my responsibility its a decision the bombers made and what you may define as racist others might define as prudent.

Again, I'm rather confused as to what point you are making - A minority act in a certain way so its ok to blame not only the rest of the population there but the religon they claim to follow, and to make generalised films that feature people who have (a) been using Islam as an excuse for US policy (b) making money and (c)to justify and by turns deny ethnic cleansing in the Balkans - is that it?

Nodin

studiorat wrote: »

It should be noted that Islam in Indonesia is quite different from Islam as we see it in the Middle East.

Dunno if the West needs to know that or not but there you are...

I'm sure it is. Islam is not monolithic by any standard. Not that you'd know it from that movie. They might as well have just put out a compilation of Herbert Loms clips...
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=3rCG5-7E7Ao

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

Again, I'm rather confused as to what point you are making - A minority act in a certain way so its ok to blame not only the rest of the population there but the religon they claim to follow, and to make generalised films that feature people who have (a) been using Islam as an excuse for US policy (b) making money and (c)to justify and by turns deny ethnic cleansing in the Balkans - is that it?

I am really glad I am not an arab muslim living in the West right now. Intellectually we can discount stuff like terrorist acts in Western Europe but it does have the effect of polarising opinions and that is what it does.It is probably an objective of the terrorists and part of the propaganda which is used by both sides.

I am not blaming anyone other then the terrorists.

What I am saying is that it helps promote a stereotype of muslims as fundamentalists as those are the ones whose actions we see in the media. You know bombings terrorism chop chop square and all that.

I am also saying that it makes people wary of making social cultural and business links with muslims or going on holiday in muslim countries because people are cautious. So it has economic and other costs to muslims.

I am not excusing US policy or the actions of the Balkan states which the UN intervened to stop but I understand them and racism which is different from condoning them.

studiorat

Nodin wrote: »

They might as well have just put out a compilation of Herbert Loms clips...
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=3rCG5-7E7Ao

LoL

ChocolateSauce

I take the line I take with all religion: Blame the idea, not the people.

fitz0

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I take the line I take with all religion: Blame the idea, not the people.

Too true!

I wonder if the riots in Denmark and other parts over the cartoons are part of this message that most of Islam is peaceful, or the threats made to Salman Rushdie, the attacks on people relating to Rushdie's book, or the current suppression of free speech and criticism of Islam in the EU and UN.

Makes you wonder why all these peaceful muslims are so quiet when the violent ones can be so loud. Surely if the peaceful ones spoke out they could only raise the opinion of Islam in the "West."

Húrin

Ridiculous. It's as if you took "Jesus Camp" and claimed that it represented Christianity.

CDfm wrote: »

Using the West as a generic term is what they do.You cant include Ireland or Poland or Switzerland or even the USA as colonial powers.

How is the USA not a colonial power? They conquered half of North America. For most of the last century they have controlled the world economy with all its dreadful suffering in the service of enriching the west.

fitz0

Húrin wrote: »

How is the USA not a colonial power? They conquered half of North America. For most of the last century they have controlled the world economy with all its dreadful suffering in the service of enriching the west.

The economy isnt a colony and North America is the USA's homeland therefore not a colony either. This kind of rules out colonial power. Thats not to say they are not an overbearing superpower but colonial power they are not.

Nodin

fitz0 wrote: »

Makes you wonder why all these peaceful muslims are so quiet when the violent ones can be so loud. Surely if the peaceful ones spoke out they could only raise the opinion of Islam in the "West."

They do, but some people are rather selective in what they hear.

fitz0

Ill be honest and say that for any statements Ive heard from violent "extremists" Ive only heard a fraction as many from peaceful muslims. Maybe its just my selective hearing or a media conspiracy to highlight violent fundamentalism.

Nodin

fitz0 wrote: »

Ill be honest and say that for any statements Ive heard from violent "extremists" Ive only heard a fraction as many from peaceful muslims. Maybe its just my selective hearing or a media conspiracy to highlight violent fundamentalism.

Violence makes headlines as do extremes, ordinary people going about their lives don't.

Was this headline news?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/16/islam-synagogue-arson-gaza-antisemitism

MooseJam

Well the quotes from the Quaran speak for themselves , saying Islam is a religion of peace is not true - it's all there in black and white, yes there are pretty bad passages in the bible but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say go out and kill everyone who isn't Christian.

Nodin

MooseJam wrote: »

Well the quotes from the Quaran speak for themselves , saying Islam is a religion of peace is not true - it's all there in black and white, yes there are pretty bad passages in the bible but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say go out and kill everyone who isn't Christian.

....but, as the majority don't, then obviously taking those quotes at face value would be incorrect.

wes

MooseJam wrote: »

Well the quotes from the Quaran speak for themselves , saying Islam is a religion of peace is not true - it's all there in black and white, yes there are pretty bad passages in the bible but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say go out and kill everyone who isn't Christian.

Have you read a Bible? Plenty of violence in there as well, that easily matches what in the Koran and surpasses it in some cases.

Now of course, most Christians don't run out and kill people, but there are passages that could be seen to advocate extreme violence, if taken the wrong way. Much the same way with the Koran.

**EDIT**
In fact a lot of stuff from the Koran is similar to what you see in the Bible.

hivizman

wes wrote: »

Have you read a Bible? Plenty of violence in there as well, that easily matches what in the Koran and surpasses it in some cases.

Now of course, most Christians don't run out and kill people, but there are passages that could be seen to advocate extreme violence, if taken the wrong way. Much the same way with the Koran.

Virtually all the violent passages in the Bible are in the Old Testament. The New Testament preaches a religion of peace (though perhaps some of the passages in the Book of Revelation run against this). Violence is done to Jesus and his disciples, rather than by them (the episode during the betrayal of Jesus reported in Matthew 26:51-52, where "one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear", is significantly shown to be unacceptable to Jesus, who is reported as saying "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword"). A frequently quoted verse that seems to contradict this message of peace is Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword". However, by studying the context of this verse, and the parallel verse Luke 12:51: "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!", it is reasonable to conclude that the use of "sword" in Matthew 10:34 is metaphorical, indicating that choosing to follow Jesus could lead to families' becoming divided.

Just as it is appropriate to look at context to understand the "sword verse" in Matthew's Gospel, so we can consider context in reading the "sword verse" in the Qur'an (Sura At-Tawbah 9:5). In the Yusuf Ali translation, this reads:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war); but if they repent, and establishe regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The context of the verse makes it clear that it refers to polytheist tribes in Arabia who had entered into treaties with Muhammad that they would accept Islam, but who had then reneged on their treaties and worked against the Muslim community. I don't want to deny that Sura At-Tawbah discusses jihad at length, and contains very strong language, such as verse 123: "O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about; and let them find firmness in you, and know that Allah is with those who fear him", and verse 29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day; nor hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizyah [poll tax levied on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

It is certainly the case that some, though not all, Muslim scholars of both the medieval and modern periods, have interpreted Surah At-Tawbah as justifying, indeed requiring, war between Islam and non-Muslims. Indeed, some scholars have claimed that the "sword verse" abrogates all the more peaceful and tolerant verses (as many as 140 verses according to some) in the Qur'an.

MooseJam

wes wrote: »

Have you read a Bible? Plenty of violence in there as well, that easily matches what in the Koran and surpasses it in some cases.

Now of course, most Christians don't run out and kill people, but there are passages that could be seen to advocate extreme violence, if taken the wrong way. Much the same way with the Koran.

**EDIT**
In fact a lot of stuff from the Koran is similar to what you see in the Bible.

if taken the wrong way ? whats the right way to take these quotes then

Koran 4.56: “Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire. Whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them, that they may feel the punishment; verily, Allah is sublime and wise.”

Koran 47.4: “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when you have caused a bloodbath among them, bind a bond firmly on them.”

Koran 8.39: “Fight them until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely Allah’s.”

yes there's a lot of crazy stuff in the bible but it's pretty much exclusively old testament - Jesus was all lovey dovey, Jesus told the disciples to spread the word not kill non believers. The thing about the bible is it was written by men so you can take and leave what you want, the Qur’an was not written by men, the Qur’an is the actual words of Allah, the actual words of Allah - the whole thing was told to muhammed by the angel Gabriel - this stuff came straight down from heaven

If you are a Muslim you have a direct commandment from Allah - in his own words, to kill non muslims !

I'm not Christian myself but it's fairly benign as far as religions go , homophobia being about the worst of it's crimes. You just can't say that about Islam - lots of people kill in it's name and they are 100% backed up by the Qu'ran, they really are doing the bidding of Allah !

Nodin

MooseJam wrote: »

If you are a Muslim you have a direct commandment from Allah - in his own words, to kill non muslims !

I'm not Christian myself but it's fairly benign as far as religions go , homophobia being about the worst of it's crimes. You just can't say that about Islam - lots of people kill in it's name and they are 100% backed up by the Qu'ran, they really are doing the bidding of Allah !

....but given the numbers of muslim in world, and the relative rarity of that kind of thing, logically it must be more complex than that. Or does reality not count?

MooseJam

Nodin wrote: »

....but given the numbers of muslim in world, and the relative rarity of that kind of thing, logically it must be more complex than that. Or does reality not count?

well most people are generally decent so they don't go around killing people but that doesn't excuse the Qur’an, it is an incitement to murder.

whadabouchasir

I also have to take issue with Islams attitude towars women.It seems really sexist to me, I can't think of any god reason for not allowing women to drive or for banning them from going anywhere by themselves.

Nodin

MooseJam wrote: »

well most people are generally decent so they don't go around killing people but that doesn't excuse the Qur’an, it is an incitement to murder.

Given the level of influence of the Koran on muslims, the fact that they don't as a rule "go around killing people" whould indicate that the simplistic reading of it you suggest is not held by the vast majority.

wes

hivizman wrote: »

Virtually all the violent passages in the Bible are in the Old Testament. The New Testament preaches a religion of peace (though perhaps some of the passages in the Book of Revelation run against this). Violence is done to Jesus and his disciples, rather than by them (the episode during the betrayal of Jesus reported in Matthew 26:51-52, where "one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear", is significantly shown to be unacceptable to Jesus, who is reported as saying "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword"). A frequently quoted verse that seems to contradict this message of peace is Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword". However, by studying the context of this verse, and the parallel verse Luke 12:51: "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!", it is reasonable to conclude that the use of "sword" in Matthew 10:34 is metaphorical, indicating that choosing to follow Jesus could lead to families' becoming divided.

Just as it is appropriate to look at context to understand the "sword verse" in Matthew's Gospel, so we can consider context in reading the "sword verse" in the Qur'an (Sura At-Tawbah 9:5). In the Yusuf Ali translation, this reads:


The context of the verse makes it clear that it refers to polytheist tribes in Arabia who had entered into treaties with Muhammad that they would accept Islam, but who had then reneged on their treaties and worked against the Muslim community. I don't want to deny that Sura At-Tawbah discusses jihad at length, and contains very strong language, such as verse 123: "O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about; and let them find firmness in you, and know that Allah is with those who fear him", and verse 29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day; nor hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizyah [poll tax levied on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

It is certainly the case that some, though not all, Muslim scholars of both the medieval and modern periods, have interpreted Surah At-Tawbah as justifying, indeed requiring, war between Islam and non-Muslims. Indeed, some scholars have claimed that the "sword verse" abrogates all the more peaceful and tolerant verses (as many as 140 verses according to some) in the Qur'an.

The old testament is part of the Bible. So what your saying doesn't matter, it a part of the book and we are comparing texts. Trying to disregard a huge part of one of the texts is laughable.

Also, the bits in the Bible calling for genocide, we should ignore them, as there in the old testament. So why is the old testament included at all? I was comparing texts and you seem to think we should ignore a huge part of the one of the texts, to try and excuse the violence with in.

wes

MooseJam wrote: »

if taken the wrong way ? whats the right way to take these quotes then

Koran 4.56: “Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire. Whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them, that they may feel the punishment; verily, Allah is sublime and wise.”

Koran 47.4: “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when you have caused a bloodbath among them, bind a bond firmly on them.”

Koran 8.39: “Fight them until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely Allah’s.”

yes there's a lot of crazy stuff in the bible but it's pretty much exclusively old testament - Jesus was all lovey dovey, Jesus told the disciples to spread the word not kill non believers. The thing about the bible is it was written by men so you can take and leave what you want, the Qur’an was not written by men, the Qur’an is the actual words of Allah, the actual words of Allah - the whole thing was told to muhammed by the angel Gabriel - this stuff came straight down from heaven

If you are a Muslim you have a direct commandment from Allah - in his own words, to kill non muslims !

I'm not Christian myself but it's fairly benign as far as religions go , homophobia being about the worst of it's crimes. You just can't say that about Islam - lots of people kill in it's name and they are 100% backed up by the Qu'ran, they really are doing the bidding of Allah !

So the bits of the Bible calling for Genocide, so we should ignore those then? You were comparing texts and I pointed out the Bible is full of all kinds of violence, but please ignore huge chunks of the book and pretend there not there.

See its very simple, the Old testament is a part of the Bible. Trying to excuse it by saying the New testament is far nicer, is rubbish, you were directly comparing 2 texts in the post I replied to and have decided to disregard a huge chunk of one of the texts, which is ridiculous. Simply put, if the old testament had no merit in Christianity, it would simply not be part of there Bible, but it is, so it has to be considered. Also, when comparing to texts, to ignore a huge chunk of one of them is ridiculous.

As for the Bible not being the word of God. Is this a mainstream Christian opinion? I was very much under the impression it would not be.

**EDIT**
You mentioned Homophobia, you do realize, that the bits of the Bible used to justify this is in the Old Testament, right? Seems to me that the Old Testament isn't disregarded by at least some Christians.

Of course, I know the Old Testament is huge inconvenience to your argument, of the Koran being more violent than the Bible, but your complete disregard of a huge chunk of one of the texts being discussed is puzzling, do you really think that your comparison is in anyway valid, when you ignore it? I would say trying to ignore it, invalidates your comparison.

MooseJam

wes wrote: »

So the bits of the Bible calling for Genocide, so we should ignore those then? You were comparing texts and I pointed out the Bible is full of all kinds of violence, but please ignore huge chunks of the book and pretend there not there.

So your point is yes the Qu'ran is incitement to murder but so's the bible so thats all right. Well that argument just doesn't fly - like I said I'm not a christian so I am not familiar with the bible, I'm just going by what I see around me and I don't see priests ranting and raving and calling for heads to be chopped off and I also don't see christian suicide bombers running about the place - I do see muslim religious figures calling for murder and I do see muslim suicide bombers and I do see muslims rioting over cartoons and muslims killing authors over their writings and muslims killing family in "honour killings" and I do see muslims treating woman horendously.

but I guess thats all right because there's bad stuff in the bible too right ?.

Bottom line is the Qu'ran is incitement to murder and if you are a muslim then this should bother you greatly and give you reason to consider if you really want to follow this "faith"

wes

MooseJam wrote: »

So your point is yes the Qu'ran is incitement to murder but so's the bible so thats all right. Well that argument just doesn't fly

Actually, thats not my point at all.

I was replying to your post where you compared 2 texts. You decided to ignore a huge part of one of them, which is an argument that doesn't fly. That was my point.

MooseJam wrote: »

- like I said I'm not a christian so I am not familiar with the bible, I'm just going by what I see around me and I don't see priests ranting and raving and calling for heads to be chopped off and I also don't see christian suicide bombers running about the place - I do see muslim religious figures calling for murder and I do see muslim suicide bombers and I do see muslims rioting over cartoons and muslims killing authors over their writings and muslims killing family in "honour killings" and I do see muslims treating woman horendously.

So why did you mention the 2 books then? You made a claim, and I replied to this. How does anything you mention above change whats in those 2 books?

You were comparing 2 texts. Thats what I replied to. All the stuff you mention means nothing, as you compared 2 books. What matters in such a comparison is the text of each book.

You were saying the Bible is less violent than the Koran, but now you admit to not being familiar with it? I was talking about the texts, you admit to not knowing about at least one of them, so I see no point on taking your comparison seriously.

MooseJam wrote: »

but I guess thats all right because there's bad stuff in the bible too right ?.

Of course not, but it seems ok to disregard huge sections of book in a comparison, as it inconvenient to your argument. Do you really think people wouldn't notice something so blatant?

MooseJam wrote: »

Bottom line is the Qu'ran is incitement to murder and if you are a muslim then this should bother you greatly and give you reason to consider if you really want to follow this "faith"

Bottom line, is that you compared 2 texts, and claimed one is more violent than the other. This is what I replied too. You have admitted to not knowing much about at least one of them. You disregarded a huge section of one of those texts, as it was inconvenient to you. You are trying to get away from this, but this is what I was talking about and what I replied to.

ironingbored

wes wrote: »

Of course, I know the Old Testament is huge inconvenience to your argument, of the Koran being more violent than the Bible, but your complete disregard of a huge chunk of one of the texts being discussed is puzzling, do you really think that your comparison is in anyway valid, when you ignore it? I would say trying to ignore it, invalidates your comparison.

Therefore, you do not have to discuss the rabidly violent nature of the Koran. Is that what you're saying?

The bottom line is how many christians fly planes into buildings and blow up trains killing innocent people? Answer: none.

And before you start quoting the War in Iraq, I am utterly against the murder of innocent civilians in any shape or form, I just find the fact that the ultimate goal of certain followers of the undoubtedly repressive religion that is Islam, is to fornicate with innumerable virgins with allah's blessing.

wes

ironingbored wrote: »

Therefore, you do not have to discuss the rabidly violent nature of the Koran. Is that what you're saying?

No, and I already answered a very similar question above.

Still, it strange that you have no problem with people ignoring huge chunks of the Bible in there comparison, but seem to be trying to do your best to put words in my mouth.

ironingbored wrote: »

The bottom line is how many christians fly planes into buildings and blow up trains killing innocent people? Answer: none.

I replied to a post comparing 2 texts. Your trying to change the subject.

So your bottom line means nothing, as I was talking about something else.

ironingbored wrote: »

And before you start quoting the War in Iraq, I am utterly against the murder of innocent civilians in any shape or form, I just find the fact that the ultimate goal of certain followers of the undoubtedly repressive religion that is Islam, is to fornicate with innumerable virgins with allah's blessing.

So, we should ignore the Iraq. Pretty funny that you can bring up 9/11, but I can't bring up the Iraq war. Why can't I bring it up exactly? Is it because, it show other people engaging in violence in this world? Your condemnation means less than nothing, as the Iraq war still happened and the people behind it and there buddies are very rich men, but I forget, when the West does something, it should be forgotten about asap.

You clearly wish to ignore the simple fact that I replied to someone comparing 2 books, and I pointed out the comparison was inaccurate.

ironingbored

wes wrote: »

Still, it strange that you have no problem with people ignoring huge chunks of the Bible

My problem is that they don't ignore enough of the Bible

wes wrote: »

So, we should ignore the Iraq. Pretty funny that you can bring up 9/11, but I can't bring up the Iraq war. Why can't I bring it up exactly? Is it because, it show other people engaging in violence in this world? Your condemnation means less than nothing, as the Iraq war still happened and the people behind it and there buddies are very rich men, but I forget, when the West does something, it should be forgotten about asap.

I didn't say we should ignore Iraq. I tried to preempt your response which in hindsight turns out to be exactly as I thought it would be.

wes wrote: »

as the Iraq war still happened and the people behind it and there buddies are very rich men, but I forget, when the West does something, it should be forgotten about asap.

Would these be the rich dictators, sheiks and mullahs who have always played ball with the US when it suited while using Islam as a tool to suppress natural development and progress?

wes

ironingbored wrote: »

My problem is that they don't ignore enough of the Bible

What are you talking about? I was talking about poster in this thread making a comparison to 2 books and they decided to ignore a huge chunk of one of those, while making there comparison.

ironingbored wrote: »

I didn't say we should ignore Iraq. I tried to preempt your response which in hindsight turns out to be exactly as I thought it would be.

You said I shouldn't quote Iraq, as you condemn it. Seem very clear to me. I was not going to bring up Iraq. I have not brought it up so far, as I was talking about something else.

You brought up Iraq and not me. I just replied to what you said. If you read my posts, I never mentioned Iraq in this thread or Western violence, as I was not talking about that. You brought up Iraq, as you wanted a response on it and you got it. Don't try and pretend that I was going to bring it up regardless of what you posted. My reply about Iraq, was due to you bringing it up.

ironingbored wrote: »

Would these be the rich dictators, sheiks and mullahs who have always played ball with the US when it suited while using Islam as a tool to suppress natural development and progress?

Yes, they would be one group. The rest being the likes of Bush and his cronies, but for some reason, you don't mention them. Strange how you don't mention them.