Death to Pagans?

dathi1

I was browsing through the Quran last night (link provided by Hobes) and found numerous quotes on how to kill polythests and unbelivers etc. Now I would probably fall into the Pagan category myself. Am I a dead duck?

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Hobbes

What link did I provide? And you have read the charter links?

dathi1

The University of California Quran English Translation. Yes I read all the charter points above. Have I violated one.?

Hobbes

Nope and I didn't provide the link last night. Hence the confusion. I suggested the charter links as it links off to your very question. I have updated the FAQ to include it as well.

Cake Fiend

You want to read through the Old Testament of the Christian Bible there and have a look at what they have to say about pagans and followers of other religions?

How many modern Christians do you see going around murdering infidels? Apply the same consideration to modern Muslims. The one-odd billion of them. I'd say you're probably OK

dathi1

You want to read through the Old Testament of the Christian Bible there and have a look at what they have to say about pagans and followers of other religions?

Interesting point...does it actually say kill them if they dont convert? Old testament is pre Christian?

How many modern Christians do you see going around murdering infidels? Apply the same logic to modern Muslims.

With the situation in the middle east I totally agree with you here but I'm specifically talking about the Quran. It actually has verses all there in black and white on 3 options with unbelievers. Offer then to convert, If no an Islamic poll tax may be levied or if no again ...death!

Hobbes

dathi1 wrote:

Interesting point...does it actually say kill them if they dont convert? Old testament is pre Christian?

Pretty much yes it does. Old testament also has the 10 commandments.

r3boot

guys, you keep providing english quotes for classical arabic texts. Arabic is a language of implied meaning. you will need to find the original text in arabic and find the context in order to find out what it means even then you will also have to find out how people were categoriesed into muslims and non-muslims. For example there are zanadiqa who are people who kill muslims and murtad (who is a muslim who decides that islam isn't for him/her and there for all muslims should die)

Also the toll paid by non-muslims at the time was eqivelant a muslim is supposed to pay (zakat) (maybe a little bit more it's been years since I've had an interest in this stuff)

If you are going to talk about islamic law I suggest you look up the "shariea" or islamic laws and and find out how a person is considered a non believer, what the conditions are and what course of action you would have to take. You will find that the only person who has to be killed is a person who is mortad. That is some one who was a muslim and is now no longer one. The only way to determine this is if a person goes in front of an islamic court and proclaims that he is an enemy of islam. (The occasions in which this has occured are very rare). Also the only way a person can be considered a non-muslim is if he/she says so.

Beer is Life

The bible was written by man though, correct? The Quran is the word of god, and God is infallible, so if you are Muslim, you must follow the Quran to the letter, no?

Hobbes

If you check the FAQ you will find the answer to this question. Quick answer.

Muslims are tolerant of other religeons. Your still burning in the hell but you shouldn't get hassle over it.

Btw, Bible was written by a few people but portions of it are the will of god and god is infallible. Also Catholic Church is the voice of god (well at least the pope is). I believe Kevin Smith even made a movie about it.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

If you check the FAQ you will find the answer to this question. Quick answer.

Muslims are tolerant of other religeons. Your still burning in the hell but you shouldn't get hassle over it.

Nice summation, but while most Muslims may be tolerant of others, Islam itself seems not to be. As I have pointed out before Islam is and has been from the start as much a political as religious movement. While it can be argued the Christianity for example was allied with Rome and grew accordingly through conquest and intolerance, Islam is inherently different. Islam had those mechanisms built in from its inception. One of the prime aims of the Prophet was to establish an Islamic theocracy for all mankind. During his life he went from a tolerant attitude in Mecca, to a more defensive attitude in Medina, all the way to an offensive attitude after he conquered Mecca.

Mecca itself is a good example when it comes to tolerance. When in the early days of Islam, when Muslims were in the minority and were excluded from the kaaba, this exclusion by the pagans was considered an act of aggression and war. When the Muslims conquered Mecca, they excluded the pagans from the kaaba on the basis that they were unclean.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.028
The memories of their own oppression from intolerance seemed to have been forgotten.

While in one sura you will find that there is no compunction of faith, others are far more intolerent of other faiths and even suggest a Muslim may have no friends or family of other faiths. This is repeated far too often for comfort and certainly far too often to suggest that Islam is tolerant. I would even go so far as to say that Islam is pro-actively intolerent of other faiths(especially Pagans and Jews).

I'll re-quote some of the relevent passages for reference.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.123
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.028
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.191
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.065
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/025.qmt.html#025.052
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.004
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.039
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.023
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.005

This is just the Quran, the Hadeeth has even more instruction along these lines.

Hobbes

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html#HEADING8

The bible also says (in the new testement) that you should kill people who don't follow the religon. I'd starting to feel deja vu from another thread.

EDIT: I knew I had a feeling I had seen this before. This is the third thread where this has been brought this topic up. If anyone does in another thread from now on you will be temp banned. As for you Wibbs you are posting stuff you already discussed in other threads and already had answers to.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

I knew I had a feeling I had seen this before. This is the third thread where this has been brought this topic up. If anyone does in another thread from now on you will be temp banned. As for you Wibbs you are posting stuff you already discussed in other threads and already had answers to.

Hobbes, my apologies for repetition, but the reason I brought this up again is simply because I don't feel it has been adequately answered. This question lies at the very heart of the current perception of the Islamic faith, both within the faith itself and it's perceptions by those outside. If these valid(IMHO) questions are not raised or answered, only further confusion will result. As I've consistently pointed out, I would have much rather lived among Muslims than Christians in the 12th century, as the rule of law had much more protection built in and the civilisation that resulted was only surpassed long after in the Christian world. As I've also pointed out before, this is not a criticism of the vast majority of Muslims, I'm merely seeking answers to some of the values that I(and others) outside of the Muslim faith would see as giving succour and support to those who do questionable things in it's name.

In one of the other threads, both r3boot and Scottish made some valid points regarding the interpretation of the Quran, but the fact remains that there are far more warlike, intolerant and aggressive passages within the Quran and the Hadeeth than are present in other faiths. The ones I quoted are a small sample. The link your provide that seeks to explain this quotes 2 passages that back up the idea of tolerance, but when faced with the many more passages that seem to imply quite a different attitude, it leaves me confused to say the least. I'm simply looking for an opinion from practising Muslims on how they can integrate these attitudes with the idea of a peaceful and tolerant Islam.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Hobbes, my apologies for repetition, but the reason I brought this up again is simply because I don't feel it has been adequately answered.

Then you should bring it up again in a thread where the discussion is still going and not create or piggyback a new thread with more of less the exact same comments again.

This is offtopic, if you wish to continue to discuss this please PM me. Thread to resume its OP intentions.

Wibbs

No problem Hobbes, thanks for the reply.

EamonnKeane

The bible also says (in the new testement) that you should kill people who don't follow the religon.

Don't remember that bit.

Hobbes

Sorry I meant old testement.

rcunning03

If you told a Muslim your a pagan, they won't try to kill or convert you, but will ask the same question a Christain would ask you i.e. "Would you not prefer to be normal ?"

In the Christain world Islam is just as misunderstood as Paganism and Islam believe in Djinn (Otherworldy creatures that live parralel to us but we can't see them) and you don't need a priest to commicate with god, they have Immans but they are just well learned in Islam and offer advice.

Mick86

dathi1 wrote:

I was browsing through the Quran last night (link provided by Hobes) and found numerous quotes on how to kill polythests and unbelivers etc. Now I would probably fall into the Pagan category myself. Am I a dead duck?

Depends on which Muslim you meet probably.

The Koran, like all religious books is open to interpretation and that interpretation will be driven by the political aims of the interpreter.

KnowItAll

The thing about Islam is that if there were only about 1000 members it would be seen as a cult and it's members brainwashed. It would be banned. Because of the number of muslims people think it's a peaceful religion.

Wibbs

Well, to be fair you could say that about all religions. One could argue that the only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of it's membership. You could say that but I think it would be wrong. The frailty of individual humans and their sometimes dubious interpretation of faith doesn't take away from the good that spirituality can bring to humanity.

rcunning03

KnowItAll wrote:

The thing about Islam is that if there were only about 1000 members it would be seen as a cult and it's members brainwashed. It would be banned. Because of the number of muslims people think it's a peaceful religion.

One could argue that your the brainwashed one, but in reality I think your just trying to get yourself banned from the another board. You have my vote, I think you should be banned.

Troll away my friend, troll away

KnowItAll

rcunning03 wrote:

One could argue that your the brainwashed one, but in reality I think your just trying to get yourself banned from the another board. You have my vote, I think you should be banned.

Troll away my friend, troll away

Why do I try to get banned? I'm banned from many boards already for expressing an opinion that may be different to the opinion of some of the moderators. It's a pain in the ass to be honest.

I don't see Islam as being like other religions. I don't say anything bad against Buddists or Hindu's etc. Thats because I regard them as being peaceful religions.

Hobbes

KnowItAll wrote:

I don't see Islam as being like other religions. I don't say anything bad against Buddists or Hindu's etc. Thats because I regard them as being peaceful religions.

Then you probably need to stay here and read up on the religion more.

rcunning03

KnowItAll wrote:

Why do I try to get banned? I'm banned from many boards already for expressing an opinion that may be different to the opinion of some of the moderators. It's a pain in the ass to be honest.

I don't see Islam as being like other religions. I don't say anything bad against Buddists or Hindu's etc. Thats because I regard them as being peaceful religions.

If your being serious, Islam is a very peaceful religion and it has a lot very insightful ideas. There are a few nutters but that's like saying the Christian right in america is representative of all christians. The media portray totally the wrong image of islam, just like in the eighties it was republican terrorists and loyalist para-militaries.

Also you should look into who actually controls the media and what their agenda is.

Hobbes

I've split off the offtopic stuff. Please remain on topic on the thread.

Talliesin

KnowItAll wrote:

I don't say anything bad against Buddists or Hindu's etc. Thats because I regard them as being peaceful religions.

But both of those religions have had attrocities committed in their names too.

Wibbs

Talliesin wrote:

But both of those religions have had attrocities committed in their names too.

Hinduism, I can think of a couple of incidents, but Buddhism? Nowhere in the tenets of Buddhism is violence tolerated as a solution. In any case one could argue(wrongly in most cases) that as US presidents have all been Christians, all wars that the US has been involved in are religious wars. If you're using a countries predominant religion and it's involvement in war as an example of a religious war, you're pretty much on a hiding to nothing.

One has to consider the aims, attitudes to non believers/pagans in the faith itself in any question of this kind and I've made my case before re Islam on this point.

However, I will say that regardless of whatever faith is involved and regardless of specific instructions within the faith to non believers, most people tend to operate the live and let live principle. I've personally more faith in people, Pagan, Christian, Muslim or Jew, than I often have in the religion they follow. Maybe that's naive but I do believe that. If you're a Pagan living in a secular society, I reckon 99% of Muslims(or anyone else) won't really give a toss. Mostly they've got enough to worry about without caring about the pagans next door(now if you start raising a full size burning man in the back garden, questions may be raised..... ).

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Nowhere in the tenets of Buddhism is violence tolerated as a solution.

Pretty sure your not allowed kill people in Catholic religon either.

But to answer you question.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/buddhism.shtml

* in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China


* in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters


* In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

"It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."

* In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives.

Osman

Greetings,

The question in the original post is addressed directly here

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Pretty sure your not allowed kill people in Catholic religon either.

Who said that you are? Sorry I don't get your point.

But to answer you question.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/buddhism.shtml

In the first and last examples may I refer you to my first paragraph in my last post. In the middle two I would have to say that neither have any of the teachings of Buddha to back up the statements.

To quote buddha from your link "Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching." Turn the other cheek etc.. When this is compared to Islam I think it's fairly easy to see differences, so it hardly answers my question really.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Who said that you are? Sorry I don't get your point.

Thou shalt not kill?

In the middle two I would have to say that neither have any of the teachings of Buddha to back up the statements.

Yet would believe themselves to be Buddists.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Thou shalt not kill?

Ok, but what has Catholicism, or indeed how Christians behave got to do with it?

Yet would believe themselves to be Buddists.

Mussolini considered himself a Christian, Franco the same and as you've pointed out Christians are told thou shalt not kill. So what? You're saying that religious people do questionable things that are against their chosen religion? Of course they do.

My contention is that Islam gives more freedom for violent action than other faiths. Did Buddha, Jesus or Krishna or their original followers take up arms against non believers for defense or otherwise? No. Did the Prophet Muhammad and his followers? Yes. The two are different issues.

Regardless of viewpoint Islam is/was a far more martial faith from it's inception than the other mainstream faiths. While most Muslims downplay this and indeed fight against this image, it is present. While the page Osman has linked to seeks to do this, there are so many passages in The Quran and the Hadith that involve aggression, it's difficult to see the peaceful nature within.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Did Buddha, Jesus or Krishna or their original followers take up arms against non believers for defense or otherwise?

Not sure about the first two but I'm pretty sure the bible is littered with wars and killings in it and even Jesus was prone to loosing the head (at least once I recall).

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Not sure about the first two but I'm pretty sure the bible is littered with wars and killings in it and even Jesus was prone to loosing the head (at least once I recall).

"Loosing the head" is a little different to commanding an army of thousands in battle. Is there not a difference between the two?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

"Loosing the head" is a little different to commanding an army of thousands in battle. Is there not a difference between the two?

Pretty sure there were a few army of thousands in the Bible who said God allowed them to kill others.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Pretty sure there were a few army of thousands in the Bible who said God allowed them to kill others.

You can state this as a rebuf to my point, but did any of them found and spread a mainstream faith of today in this way? So Jesus "lost the head" once. Did he take up arms against non believers or use the sword in any way? Did Buddha? Did any of the other religious founders?

What people subsequently did(and do) in their name re your examples does not take away from the fact that they themselves esposed peace, turn the other cheek, humility and non resistance in the face of your enemies and non believers. In that the birth and subsequent history of Islam was different. There are many martial passages(particularly with regard to non believers) in the Quran and Hadith and while they may be open to debate, the sheer number far outweighs the amount to be found in other creeds.

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

My contention is that Islam gives more freedom for violent action than other faiths.

Don't you mean that there are interpretations of the writings of Islam that give more freedom for violent actions?

Look at how many Christian religions are in the world today. How is that possible when almost all of them base their religious beliefs on the same writings? Look at how our interpretations of those writings over time has changed.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of Muslims around the world don't agree with the more violent interpretations of their holy writings as well. Unfortunately, the silent majority who live by a peaceful interpretation of their religious writings don't make good media, so we concentrate on the (tiny) extremist minority and extrapolate their beliefs to the entire religion.

I seem to recall, for example, someone pointing out at some stage that "Thou shalt not kill" in the Bible is a mistranslation - could even have been Hobbes. The allegedly correct translation is somewhat more in line with some of the translations you are putting forward as evidence that there is more freedom for violent actions in Islam.

Does this put Christianity on the same footing? Or is the issue more a question of how many followers choose those more violent interpretations? That, I would hazard, is not entirely a religious issue, but as much a socio-economic one as anything.

jc

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

Don't you mean that there are interpretations of the writings of Islam that give more freedom for violent actions?

Nope, I mean there are far more references to violence and violent action in the Quran.

Look at how many Christian religions are in the world today. How is that possible when almost all of them base their religious beliefs on the same writings? Look at how our interpretations of those writings over time has changed.

True, but the Quran is supposed to be the last revealed word of Allah and is unchanging in it's wording since it was first collected. While interpretation changes the original text doesn't and the original text has so many martial passages that are hard to ignore for the faithful.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of Muslims around the world don't agree with the more violent interpretations of their holy writings as well.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the silent majority who live by a peaceful interpretation of their religious writings don't make good media, so we concentrate on the (tiny) extremist minority and extrapolate their beliefs to the entire religion.

The extremist minority may be tiny, but the community at large seems unwilling or unable in many cases to stop them which suggests some agreement with their beliefs.

I seem to recall, for example, someone pointing out at some stage that "Thou shalt not kill" in the Bible is a mistranslation - could even have been Hobbes. The allegedly correct translation is somewhat more in line with some of the translations you are putting forward as evidence that there is more freedom for violent actions in Islam.

Fine if correct, but when weighed against the large amount of similar passages in the Quran and Hadith, the point is lost.

Does this put Christianity on the same footing? Or is the issue more a question of how many followers choose those more violent interpretations? That, I would hazard, is not entirely a religious issue, but as much a socio-economic one as anything.

Not entirely religious, but more likely in Islam than in Buddhism for example.

jc

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

I seem to recall, for example, someone pointing out at some stage that "Thou shalt not kill" in the Bible is a mistranslation - could even have been Hobbes.

Might of been because I'm aware of it. The original Hebrew could also be translated as "Thou shalt not murder" allowing people to kill as long as it wasn't a murder. Its believed that murder was changed to Kill to fit in with Jesus teachings.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html

But even in modern day there are people who interpret the Bible to justify killing other people, anti-abortionists are probably the best example of this.

btw, you can hardly argue on who has the most violence in thier religous book. As mentioned already the Bible has loads of killings and what-not and the Christian history is rife with wars and killings of innocents in the name of God. TBH a lot of Christian/Jewish/Islam religon overlaps.

the_syco

You want to kill the pagans? Well, don't you mean infidels? Infidel is to Islam, as Pagan is to Christainity, me thinks. So if you want to kill us Christains, we'll do do a "death on Islam" as well:p:D:cool:

Excelsior

Hobbes wrote:

The bible also says (in the new testement) that you should kill people who don't follow the religon.

That is not true. The Christian faith does not advocate killing anyone.

Also, the Pope is not the voice of God.

Hobbes

Excelsior wrote:

That is not true. The Christian faith does not advocate killing anyone.

Also, the Pope is not the voice of God.

As mentioned I meant Old testament which does advocate killing people. As for the pope, dogmatic law.

Btw, the_syco post is meant in jest but has been taken out of context (I have spoken to the_syco about this), I would prefer if people be careful when joking in the forum.

Dilly1

”There’s something about faith in God, they reason, that naturally produces intolerance and violence."

"Perhaps only pagans and atheists are actually the salt of the earth"

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

btw, you can hardly argue on who has the most violence in thier religous book. As mentioned already the Bible has loads of killings and what-not and the Christian history is rife with wars and killings of innocents in the name of God. TBH a lot of Christian/Jewish/Islam religon overlaps.

True, but most of the worlds faiths have non violence at the root of their founders message. What transpired in their names was unfortunate and not in keeping with the original message. Using that in an argument takes us away from the point IMHO.

As I have pointed out, none of the other founders of faiths took up arms against others. That's an important distinction. How would people react if it was discovered that Buddha or Jesus or anyone other founder of a creed for that matter, fought at the head of an army that killed and enslaved people? It would rightly shock many of their faithful.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

True, but most of the worlds faiths have non violence at the root of their founders message. What transpired in their names was unfortunate and not in keeping with the original message. Using that in an argument takes us away from the point IMHO.

Which is the same as the Islamic faith as far as I can tell.

As I have pointed out, none of the other founders of faiths took up arms against others.

Go read the bible again. I have already pointed out this is not the case and in another thread that you went on about the same subject I pointed out that the bible did at one stage condone slavery and the subjugation of women.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Which is the same as the Islamic faith as far as I can tell.

How can this be the case when the Prophet personally commanded an army of war, with all the "fighting verses" to back it up? Something Jesus, Buddha, Krishna etc didn't. So it's not the same at all. The hadith is full of references to various battles fought by the Prophet and his followers culminating in the capture of Mecca. Battles where men were killed and their women were bound into slavery(whom their right hand possess). A term for war captives and slaves that crops up time and again. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/023.qmt.html#023.006

Go read the bible again. I have already pointed out this is not the case

You just stated that there were wars and battles fought in the name of God in the old testament(King David and Solomon spring to mind), but you failed to connect the personal prosecution of those or any later wars with any of the religious founders I've mentioned(Christian or otherwise).

and in another thread that you went on about the same subject I pointed out that the bible did at one stage condone slavery and the subjugation of women.

I can't find the link for that exchange now, but I seem to remember that I disagreed with at least 2 of your points made. Slavery is a grey area when one regards the Bible(especially in the New Testament). While Jesus made no direct statement about the morality of slavery, there is no such grey area in Islam. Slavery and the practical workings of same are well represented in both the Quran and Hadith. While the west has a shameful history with regard to slavery, much of the supply of the slave trade to Europe and the new world was run by Muslims. Slavery in Islam was considered a normal part of life. Europe may have shamefully profited for far too long from slavery, but at least it was one of the first places to ban it. In fact most of the uproar came from Christian leaders who felt it didn't sit well with the teachings of their founder.

As for the subjugation of women, early Christianity and Jesus in particular had very close female followers. In fact the first people it is claimed he appeared to after the resurrection were women. This was at a time when women would have been considered unreliable witnesses by many. In any case I only make these points in reply to your own.

From what I can see, your point seems to be to state that all religions(and in particular their followers) have blood on their hands in one way or another. Fine point taken and I agree with you, but you don't respond at all to the point that their founders singularly didn't. I would contend that if you do, you would have to say that Islam and it's founder Muhammad, are different in this respect at least.