FrontPageMagSymposium: A New Koran?

Wakas

The above point you make is invalid, as in this example, it is not about translation of words, it is about actually reading what came before and after. To prove this, please enlighten us as to what words I or anyone else said were mistranslated?

You seem to be doing everything to avoid the point read what comes before and after to understand a passage.

If you are so confident of your methodology why not go to someone you consider relatively unbiased and intelligent and say "I want to understand a passage in a book, but I dont take the sentences before or after into account, good idea or bad idea?".

Bigmo

I still don't know what Mahmud is trying to get at. He seems to be bothered about "whatever you find them", meaning since some pagans attack you go around and see any pagan walking around and kill them until you make peace with these pagans who started fighting with you then you can leave any other pagan you meet and not have to kill him. Is that how you understand the verse? Plus the Koran did not say fight those who don't make peace with you, thats a Sunni undretsanding which relies on verse 9-29 as the verse that abrogates over a hundred verses. The Koranic undertsanding is fight those who fight against you because of your faith or causing you and others oppression.

People do not have to make any peace with you unless there is prior hiostility with you against them, as the case it was with the pagans of Mecca and its surroundings. There were many pagans in Arabia who were not involved in these conflicts.

He needs to read some commentaries from Sunni sources and he will realize that the real verse they used to justify offensive Jihad is not even verse 9-5 but verse 9-29 which they believe is the final command and abrogates previous verses. If Mahmud was right, the Sunni jurist would not haverelied on abrogation to justify conquest and Jihad. They would have just relied on the verses he cited, but in reality these verses do not mean what he says. He takes bits and pieces of a verse and sometimes not even completing the verse or reading the verses before or after it.

Evem Robert Spencer acknowledges verse 9-29 as the abrogation verse and knows its the only way he can claim the Koran justifies violence.

Sunnis believe "peace" means you send the pagans or Christians or whoever a letter saying enter islam and we will leave you, if not you will eneter a war until you pay jizya. This is not what the Koran is saying. The Koran says until they CEASE, meaning until they stop. Stop what? Stop being pagans? No, stop fighting you. The job of the messenger is but to preach and warn, not to enforce or coerce. God does not recognize someone's faith that is not built upon his free will. The word Dawa, means invite. Sunni do not believe in that word, since they don't give you a choice and an invitation means you have the right to refuse that invitation.

Edip_Yuksel

No, not a fact. It is impossible for "The Believers" to be at war or at peace with "The Pagans/Non-Believers" as neither of these two are states. You cannot have a peace treaty unless you are a hierarchically defined territorial organisation, i.e. a state. This is why so many religious leaders have criticised Bush for talking about a "war on terror" -you cannot have a 'war' without a specific enemy. The tribes that Muhammad and his companions were fighting were indeed pagans, but this does not mean that he was fighting all the pagans in the world! He was only at war with some Arabian tribes.

Therefore to say "Kill the pagans/unbelievers wherever you find them" is completely wrong. It is being unspecific, it is generalising on the basis of religion. It fails to specify which pagan tribes, or which individuals from a specific tribe (i.e. combatants/non-combatants). A statement like that from a Serb general in the Bosnian or Kosovo wars - "When the treaty runs out, kill the Muslims wherever you find them" - would land them in a war crimes tribunal in the Hague. It is completely unfitting in the Quran.

I believe that Mahmud has understood the jurisprudence of the Quran very well. The Quran, in fact distinguishes pagans who had a peace treaty with muslims from the pagans who did not have the treaty. Furthermore, the Quran instructs Muhammad and his supporters not to help a group of muslims who had attacked pagans who had peace treaty with the muslim community under the leadership of Muhammad.

Peace,
Edip

Prince

I believe that Mahmud has understood the jurisprudence of the Quran very well. The Quran, in fact distinguishes pagans who had a peace treaty with muslims from the pagans who did not have the treaty. Furthermore, the Quran instructs Muhammad and his supporters not to help a group of muslims who had attacked pagans who had peace treaty with the muslim community under the leadership of Muhammad.
Peace,
Edip

Can you please quote the verse or anyone know which verse its referring to?

PEACE

Edip_Yuksel

Can you please quote the verse or anyone know which verse its referring to?

PEACE

Peace and blessings be on you 2Pac. I was in rush when I posted. Here is the verse from QRT

872 Those who have acknowledged and emigrated and strived with their money and lives in the cause of God, and those who sheltered and supported; these are the allies of one another. Those who acknowledged but did not emigrate, you do not owe them any allegiance until they emigrate. But if they seek your help in the system, then you must support them, except if it is against a people with whom there is a treaty between you. God is watcher over what you do.*

008072 This verse unequivocally states that the rule of law is above any other affiliation. Islam emphasizes the importance of the rule of law, justice and peace (1691,92).

Bigmo

I believe that Mahmud has understood the jurisprudence of the Quran very well. The Quran, in fact distinguishes pagans who had a peace treaty with muslims from the pagans who did not have the treaty. Furthermore, the Quran instructs Muhammad and his supporters not to help a group of muslims who had attacked pagans who had peace treaty with the muslim community under the leadership of Muhammad.

Peace,
Edip

I don't think so. First the Koran recognizes treaties with pagans with whom there was a prior hostility as the Koran tells us regarding the pagans of Mecca and those who remained with them among the believers.

9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

The Koran did not say will you not fight pagans who did not make some peace with you, but is refering to pagans who already had a prior confrontation with Muhammad and his followers. So when the koran says unless those you have a treaty with you, treaty is different from peace. Many times enemies can make some treaty between each other as the case with the treaty of the forbidden months. Its kind of a a temporary cessation of hostility. As far as with the rest of the pagans the Koran tells us

1128 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it??

Noah's people were pagans yet there was no treaty enforced between them, so was the case with Lot and many other prophets include Saleh and others. Once again we are failing to look at the specifics of the case of Muhammad and the Meccans with the other prophets. If the system in place required due to caravan trades and access to goods and travel that you make treaties with various tribes along the routes, thats something specific with ASrabia which did not have a central authority like a roman empire or Persian. But to use that and let it speak for the Koran is looking at Muhamad's specific Sunnah and ignoring the other prophets who did not have to make various tribal agreements for whatever reasons. Islam speaks for all the prophets and not just the biography and specifics of Muhammad.

2.217-218. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein; Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought in the path of God,- they have the hope of the Mercy of God. And God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Here the verse makes it clear exactly what the hostilities are about. Treaties and alliances people make for many reasons and not because one side are monotheist and the other pagans. Even until recently many tribes in Arabia would have to makevarious treaties and arrangements and coontractual agreements with various tribes who fall on the way of the caravan routes, sometimes to seek protection and others to pay some taxes for passing through their territorial domain. Islam is not dependent on that. This is Sunni thinking that treats the biography and specifics of Muhammad's life divine and must therefore bear Islam's name. Yes we are to learn from the examples and try to understand the wisdom and history of the communities and environment that Muhammad lives around. But thios has nothing to do with Islam per say as it is not reflective of the other prophe's teaching. What treaties did Jesus sign or arrange?

Mahmud_H

Salam all,

I've had a little email conversation with Khalim Massoud, the antagonist of this debate, and thought I'd share it with you for your amusement. It starts with me questioning him on his description of a random Palestinian mullah as being worse than the Nazis without him backing up his attack.

from Mahmud H
to [email protected]
date Tue, May 27, 2008 at 850 AM

Dear Khalim,

On your "Aryans are Masters of the World; Everyone Else is Subhuman"
article, do you really think "Muslims are Masters of The
World, Its Leaders and Teachers" is racist in a way comparable to
"Aryans are Masters of the World; Everyone Else is Subhuman", as
opposed to just being narcissistic?

from Khalim Massoud [email protected]
reply-to [email protected]
to Mahmud
date Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1136 PM
subject Re "Aryans are Masters of the World; Everyone Else is Subhuman "

First of all, Islamic supremacy has nothing to do with racism. There are Muslims of every race and Islamic supremacy discriminates against non-Muslims of every race.

Second, Islamic supremacy is worse than Aryan supremacy. German fascists' strife for world domination was primarily motivated by greed; they wanted to live. Islamic fascists' strife for world domination is motivated by a perverted sense of religious duty; they don't care whether they live or die. The danger of Islamic fundamentalism goes far beyond narcissism.

from Mahmud
to [email protected]
date Wed, May 28, 2008 at 922 PM
subject Re "Aryans are Masters of the World; Everyone Else is Subhuman "

Dear Khalim,

I read your debate on FrontPageMagazine.com entitled "A New Koran?" I
do agree with you that where a passage indicates sectarianism, such as
in Chapter 9, that is contradictory, and so cannot be from God.

However, when you say "Attempts to reinterpret verses like 2.191 or
9.5 are simply pathetic. It is nothing more than whitewashing of
genocide." This is somewhat undermined by your defending of the
medieval crusades on your blog. Surely genocide needs to be condemned
consistently. Haven't you read about crusades?

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)

"Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city
almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of
that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a
few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence.
Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to
one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our
men waded in blood up to their ankles..." According to Raymond of
Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." The
chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi states the Jewish defenders sought refuge
in their synagogue, but the "Franks burned it over their heads",
killing everyone inside. The Crusaders circled the flaming building
while singing "Christ, We Adore Thee!". Tancred claimed the Temple
quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims
there, but he could not prevent their deaths at the hands of his
fellow crusaders. The Fatimid governor Iftikhar ad-Daula withdrew to
the Tower of David, which he soon surrendered to Raymond in return for
safe passage for himself and bodyguards to Ascalon. "

When you say on your blog, "the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of
aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands
controlled by Muslims," you are doing exactly the same thing as
chapter 9v5 - "Kill the pagans wherever you find them" - you are
generalising on the basis of religion. The Jews in the Synagogue of
Jerusalem didn't unjustly take any land from "The Christians". The
Frankish warlords who invaded and ethnically cleansed much of
Palestine and Lebanon form Muslims and Jews did not have any kind of
'just cause'. They were not defending anyone.

The Arab tribes that conquered the region did not take it from the
Franks, nor did they take it from the Pope. They took it from the
Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire ? the empire of Constantinople, which
was raped, pillaged and sacked by the Forth Crusade. Is this your idea
of self defence?

Can I ask, why do you defend this most cruel slaughter based on
religious extremism, whilst condemning an article by a cleric which
nowhere advocates any kind of violence?

http//newsblaze.com/story/20071002112158tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html

The writer seems to have a na?ve, utopian view of Islam's history.
Don't you realise you give the impression you have the same na?ve,
utopian view of western history, whitewashing genocide along the way?

from Khalim Massoud [email protected]
to Mahmud
date Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1133 PM

I don't think I ever defended the Crusades on our blog. While I understand the reason behind the Crusades, I could never defend the mostly barbaric manner in which they were conducted.

Surely genocide needs to be condemned
consistently.

Absolutely!

Haven't you read about crusades?

Yes, and chances are a lot more than you have.

When you say on your blog, "the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of
aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands
controlled by Muslims," you are doing exactly the same thing as
chapter 9v5 - "Kill the pagans wherever you find them" - you are
generalising on the basis of religion.

Your statement is patently false. It is a historical fact that Middle East was Christian before it became Muslim. This makes the Crusades not unprovoked. You can agree or disagree with the need for the Crusades, but the fact remains, they were not unprovoked. The reason we placed the Crusades in our manifesto is because that are being used by Islamists to paint every Muslim v. non-Muslim conflict as the Crusades, which became a dirty word due to the fact that most people choose to ignore history.

The Jews in the Synagogue of
Jerusalem didn't unjustly take any land from "The Christians".

Again, we are not stating that the Crusades were just or unjust. All we're saying that they were not unprovoked acts of aggression.

The
Frankish warlords who invaded and ethnically cleansed much of
Palestine and Lebanon form Muslims and Jews did not have any kind of
'just cause'. They were not defending anyone.

The Arab tribes that conquered the region did not take it from the
Franks, nor did they take it from the Pope. They took it from the
Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire ? the empire of Constantinople, which
was raped, pillaged and sacked by the Forth Crusade. Is this your idea
of self defence?

Can I ask, why do you defend this most cruel slaughter based on
religious extremism, whilst condemning an article by a cleric which
nowhere advocates any kind of violence?

There is a difference between stating the fact defending something. When Nazi Germany preemptively attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, it wasn't unprovoked. Does it mean that I defend or justify that attack? Absolutely not. On the other hand, Islamic supremacy is the basis for violence. Remove Islamic supremacy from the Islamic religious text, and Islam becomes a peaceful religion, just as the God intended.

http//newsblaze.com/story/20071002112158tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html

The writer seems to have a na?ve, utopian view of Islam's history.
Don't you realise you give the impression you have the same na?ve,
utopian view of western history, whitewashing genocide along the way?

Again, there is a difference between stating the fact and condoning it. Apparently this difference is too subtle for you.

From Mahmud
Date Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 809 PM
To [email protected]

Dear Khalim,

"Your statement is patently false. It is a historical fact that Middle East was Christian before it became Muslim. This makes the Crusades not
unprovoked."

Nonsense. You might as well say because a random passer by gave you a funny look, viciously beating him to death was not 'unprovoked aggression'. As I've clearly explained to you, "Muslim" and "Christian" are not two factions that can be 'provoked' or have rightful, eternal claims to territory.

Genocide is always unprovoked aggression. Genocide is the murder of innocent people. No faction can be provoked by innocent people. Murdering innocent people is always unprovoked agreesion.

You are claiming the crusades, which were the systematic, religiously motivated murder of vast numbers of innocent people, were not unprovoked aggression. Therefore no matter what long winded excuses you use, you are whitewashing genocide for political gain.

Don't you see how badly this alienates normal people?

From Khalim Massoud [email protected]
Date Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 301 AM
To Mahmud

Nonsense. You might as well say because a random passer by gave you a funny look, viciously beating him to death was not 'unprovoked aggression'.
As I've clearly explained to you, "Muslim" and "Christian" are not two factions that can be 'provoked' or have rightful, eternal claims to territory.

Let me try to explain the way that even a moron can understand.

I have a piece of land.
You attacked me and kicked me out.
You gave it to your son.
My son attacked him and kicked him out.
Was the action #4 justified? Maybe, maybe not. Was it unprovoked? Absolutely not.

Genocide is always unprovoked aggression. Genocide is the murder of innocent people. No faction can be provoked by innocent people. Murdering innocent people is always unprovoked agreesion.

You must be a real idiot to equate the Crusades with genocide. According to you, every conquest is a genocide. If you don't understand the meaning of the word, look it up before using it. Genocide is a systematic extermination of people based on a trait. Extermination of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs is genocide. Extermination of Black Muslims by Arab Muslims in Darfur is genocide. Murdering rampages of Crusaders, however abhorrent, are not genocide.

You are claiming the crusades, which were the systematic, religiously motivated murder of vast numbers of innocent people, were not unprovoked aggression. Therefore no matter what long winded excuses you use, you are whitewashing genocide for political gain.

Again, let me explain it so even a moron can understand. The goal of crusades was to conquer (or rather re-conquer) the Middle East, not extermination of non-Christians. The argument could be made that the goal of the Inquisition was the extermination of non-Christians, but even that would be a stretch. And what possible political gain can we obtain by stating that the Crusades were not unprovoked?

Don't you see how badly this alienates normal people?

If, after what you wrote, you consider yourself one of the normal people, our criteria of normalcy greatly differs from yours.

from Mahmud
to [email protected]
date Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1037 AM

Let me try to explain the way that even a moron can understand.

I have a piece of land.

You attacked me and kicked me out.

You gave it to your son.

My son attacked him and kicked him out.
Was the action #4 justified? Maybe, maybe not. Was it unprovoked? Absolutely
not.

Sure, a moron can understand that. But only a moron will believe it -
because that wasn't what happened. The crusaders were not the sons of
the people people in Jerusalem when the Muslim Arabs conquered the
city. The people murdered by them were.

This is the whole point you're missing. Land can never be Christian,
Muslim or Atheist. Land belongs to people, not to religions. When a
army of barbarous murders wipes out the Muslim population of a city,
it is unacceptable to say that they were 'provoked' because the city
used to be a different religion. If that is the way you think, you are
an extremist.

You must be a real idiot to equate the Crusades with genocide. According to
you, every conquest is a genocide. If you don't understand the meaning of
the word, look it up before using it. Genocide is a systematic extermination
of people based on a trait. Extermination of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs is
genocide. Extermination of Black Muslims by Arab Muslims in Darfur is
genocide. Murdering rampages of Crusaders, however abhorrent, are not
genocide.

Of course they were - they charged into Jerusalem and killed all the
Muslims - is that not enough for you? This doesn't happen in every
war. When it does, it is genocide.

From Wiki
"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic,
racial, religious, or national group.

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal
definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this
convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such killing members of the group;
causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.""

Hitler committed genocide when he systematically killed Jews, and when
he starved the Dutch. The act of capturing France was not genocide.
There is a difference between capturing territory and trying to wipe
out the inhabitants. When the Crusaders systematically murdered
thousands of Muslim civilians simply because they were Muslim, that
was genocide.

Surely, since you think of yourself as an expert on the crusades, you
should know this? Or is your logic simply that it's only genocide when
it's committed by non-Western countries? Serbs of course don't count
as Western because they're Orthodox, and of course the Crusaders
murdered lots of Orthodox Christians too.

from Khalim Massoud [email protected]
reply-to [email protected]
to Mahmud
date Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 215 AM

We have no times for morons who make shit up and try to pass it as historical facts. Similarly, nobody here is interested in your half-baked opinions pulled out of your ass. In case this didn't get through your thick skull, your account is blocked. Fuck off.

Charming fellow, eh!

-D

savage_carrot

Lol, quite cute. Now we all know what he has "no times for"...intelligent debate.

sirohey

First of all .. any attempt to change or remake the Quran will not succeed, so I am not really bothered by these idiots who think they can come up with a book better than GOD and can change the Quran in any way, shape or form.

When God has taken the protection of the Quran in His own Hands ... who do you think will be able to "change" it? I laugh at these fools and what they try to achieve by becoming GOD themselves .. to hell with them and their followers.

Try and change it and see what happens to those that change it and those that aid and abet in their endeavor .... destruction will be sent on them from directions they and we CANNOT perceive .......... you people are stupid even to discuss that the Quran can be changed! or that it has to come in line with the "reality" you see in this world which will soon be engulfed by the Wrath of GOD.

Peace