Give people the benefit of the doubt. You can always overreact later.

Posted on November 6, 2009 by Neil

I sometimes use the line in the title with my team at work and when giving leadership and management presentations.  It is a corollary to the one bad argument can undermine ten good arguments truism.  Charity about the motives of others is usually a win-win proposition, and you don’t want to lose credibility by making mistakes.  When performing audits or investigations we don’t want to make false accusations.  Our initial assessments are almost always right, but if you are wrong people will remember it for a long time and not take your views as seriously as you’d like. 

The reactions to the Ft. Hood shootings make an interesting study.  Many were so quick to avoid assuming it wasn’t Islamic terrorism that they swung the pendulum too far the other way and insisted that it wasn’t.  They had no evidence for that, and it appears that they were wrong.  They had no qualms about saying it was probably post-traumatic stress disorder, even though the guy had never experienced the original stress that this malady requires.  If it is good not to speculate, then why speculate about potentially non-Islamic related causes?

Side note:  Looks like the Army dropped the ball on this one.  I wonder how much political correctness influenced it?  This isn’t religious discrimination, it is common sense.  Regardless of your type of organization, you should not employ members of ideological groups bent on your destruction.  If churches would have booted false teachers 100 years ago we wouldn’t have the anti-Christian nonsense taught in countless churches today.

Side note 2: Hopefully many peaceful Muslims and Muslim countries around the world will denounce these actions.  The Koran does indeed teach to harm enemies of Islam, but I am grateful for disobedient Muslims who don’t follow that teaching.  If they have created a new religion that ignores those teachings, good for them.  They should call out their “false teachers” the same way that I and others freely point out the errors of fake Christians.  You do your movement no good to have false unity with those who believe the opposite of what you do.

Oh, and there is a is just one major problem with the the peaceful Islam message: You can never be completely sure if those denouncements are authentic because Muslims are allowed to lie to advance their faith.  So CAIR’s repudiation of the actions might be advancing a distorted (i.e., better) view of Islam. Or they might be advancing the real Islam and just using their free ticket to lie.

Filed under: Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

« »

63 Responses

  1. befuddled2, on November 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm Said:

    You might like to take a look at the the Council on American Islamic Relations, America’s largest Muslim civil rights organization. They are speaking out very strongly against this.

    http://www.cair.com/

    In a statement, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:

    “We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”

    Along with innumerable condemnations of terror, CAIR has in the past launched an online anti-terror petition drive called “Not in the Name of Islam,” initiated a television public service announcement (PSA) campaign against religious extremism and coordinated a “fatwa,” or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism.

    Reply
    • Neil, on November 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm Said:

      Hi befuddled2,

      There is just one major problem with that: You never know if you can believe a Muslim — http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm — as they are allowed to lie to advance their faith.

      So CAIR might be advancing a distorted (i.e., better) view of Islam. Or they might be advancing the real Islam and just using their free ticket to lie.

      Reply
    • Neil, on November 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm Said:

      Here’s an excerpt. I encourage everyone to read it all:

      Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

      The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’

      The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Qur’an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

      The near absence of Qur’anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that most Muslims are quite honest.

      Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

      Reply
    • Neil, on November 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm Said:

      And a little more about violence in the Koran — http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

      Reply
  2. befuddled2, on November 6th, 2009 at 1:22 pm Said:

    In regards to the statement of Council on American Islamic Relations I wil state that I will treat them as I would any other group – by their actions and words. So far I have seen nothing that would make me doubt that they mean what they say.

    As for violence and lying – I will agree that the Bible is more clear cut about lying than the Qur’an. Even in the Bible though you do have an instance where lying was permitted as when Rehab lied to the King of Jericho about hiding Isrealite spies. And I would argue that those Christians who hid Jews during WWII were being more moral in lying to the Nazi’s than they would have been in telling the truth.

    As for violence – read the book of Joshua.

    Should you wish to walk the road of not ever believing anything a Muslim says, in believing that all are out to do in the United States – then the only answer is to kill them all.

    I though, do not believe this to be true. Just as in the Bible there are enough strong and moral teachings to outweigh the more questionable teachings. And as individuals and groups it is always better to judge them by their actions – whether Christian or Muslim.

    Reply
    • Neil, on November 6th, 2009 at 1:28 pm Said:

      Again, regardless of CAIRs actions the Islamic religion teaches that you can lie to advance it. And you’ve glossed over much of CAIRs problems. I’ll address some of those another day.

      As for violence – read the book of Joshua.

      I have, many times. Great book. True word of God. Clearing out the promised land of a culture that had 400 years to repent but didn’t. Check out Leviticus 18 for a laundry list of their crimes, including sacrificing children to their god.

      Of course I’m not advocating that we kill Muslims. I know a lot of them are peace loving. I just know what Islam really teaches, how Islamic governments operate and how the movement is infiltrating countries around the world.

      Reply
  3. befuddled2, on November 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm Said:

    Interesting. So you are good with killing the children to save them? Doesn’t seem like a very moral position to me. Although it does fit in with the idea of killing all the Muslims.

    Reply
  4. befuddled2, on November 6th, 2009 at 4:53 pm Said:

    Well, the morality of that is a whole topic in and of itself. And one that I do not believe we will agree on.

    But I am not sure that this is the place to go into that. This posting was about the Fort Hood shootings. My concern was in using an overly broad brush in painting Islam in a single color. My bringing this up was just to point out that the Bible also advocates violent solutions that are blessed by God.

    Reply
  5. Ryan, on November 6th, 2009 at 10:08 pm Said:

    Why is it that the motives of the guy are so important if he might be a muslim, but the motives don’t matter when a person is killed for being gay.

    I think the motives are very important, and if this crime was religiously motivated, it’s evidence of a greater problem that needs to be dealt with. I know that muslim groups denounce these things publicly (and I think sincerely in most cases) but that is not enough. They need to start publicly advocating peace – all the time – not just after an attack.

    Also, (and I’m not trying to start a fight, so nobody get mad at me for this) doesn’t this undercut the theory that the presence of guns would prevent such a massacre? I’m assuming that most people on army bases are carrying firearms, but I could be totally wrong about that.

    Reply
    • Dan, on November 7th, 2009 at 6:25 pm Said:

      I don’t think that everyone carrys their gun around with them everywhere they go on base. The fact is that one person did have a gun and used it before the violence stopped. Who knows how long it would have continued if someone had not been present with a gun; when the gunman ran out of bullets we’d have to presume. But I understand what you’re trying to say.

      Reply
  6. befuddled2, on November 7th, 2009 at 12:28 am Said:

    I think motive always matter whether gay , Muslim or whatever. If you don’t know the why then you can never effectively figure out the best way to ensure it does not repeat.

    And there are Muslim groups that do advocate peace all the time and feel strongly that the use of Islam in the name of terrorism is a perversion.

    http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/this_site.html

    In history and in current days the Bible and Christianity have also been used as justification for many cruelties and atrocities. The same is true for all religions.

    And given some of the posts about the Qur’an and what it says I thought this explanation of interest.

    …God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you over religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you over religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion… (Surat al-Mumtahana: 8-9)

    My own gut feeling right now is that the Major’s religion will have some role. But it is not the whole story and I do not think it will be the biggest part of the story. I am waiting to see what is found out.

    Now while I am pro gun control laws I will say that on the base the only people with guns are the security people. Most military do not walk around base wearing guns.

    Reply
  7. befuddled2, on November 7th, 2009 at 12:18 pm Said:

    I do not know enough about Islam and the Qur’an to effectively counter what you have said yet . I can only say that I can also refer you to Christian web sites and Biblical references that also promote violence. I can refer you to Joshua where God considered the lives and salvation of the Isrealites of more importance than those who did not believe. I can refer you the many times the Bible has been interpreted to mean that no other faiths can be allowed to exist. It is interesting that it was not until the Enlightenment with its skeptical stance towards religion and the start of the secular states that this started to die away in the Chrisitan world.

    I can refer you to the fact that during the Middle Ages those areas under the control of Islam were actually more humane to the Jews than those under the control of Christianity. I can refer you to the modern day abortion clinic bombers and killers. I can refer you to modern day Christian terrorist groups in India and Africa. Not as large as the Muslim ones perhaps, but nonetheless in existance.

    You say that this is a misinterpretaion of Christianity and the Bible. There are those on the Muslim side who say the same.

    It is easy to take seperate verses out and use them as evidence one way or the other. That can be done with any holy book, even the Bible. What really matters is what the whole says AND how the people who follow that religion interpret it. I have read how other Muslims have interpreted the Qur’an. A more peaceful way. And I have read of how they have acted on that interpretation – something the mainstream media does not often pick up on.

    I would further say that there is a strong nationalistic element mixed in with this. Europe left a bad legacy behind them in the Middle East. The area has a historic mistrust of both Europe and the United States. We support totalitarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Many of these people do not trust us, with some (not all) justified reasons.

    I am not trying to justify their beliefs – nothing could justify terrorism tactics and the killing of children, babies and noncombatants – just pointing out that there is more here than just religion.

    Finally from your post it seems you are advocating that we should not trust any Muslims. Does that mean that you are in favor of discharging the more than 3,500 Muslims who are in the U.S. Military? Are you advocating that we should put under arrest any Muslim, shut down Mosques? Especially since you seem to believe in a Muslim conspiracy with a 100 year plan?

    There have been Muslim soldiers in the U.S. Military who have served well in both Afghanistan and Iraq – who have given their lives in service to their country in both places.

    I belief that your analysis is too shallow and simplistic, that you rely on too few voices to inform you, and that acting on your ideas would only make things worse instead of better.

    Reply
    • Neil, on November 7th, 2009 at 12:49 pm Said:

      Hi befuddled2,

      It would be most helpful if you came up with specific biblical references. It is hard to address generalities like that.

      The words of Islam are very clear. I offered a site with many examples. Feel free to demonstrate how those are taken out of context. Then come show me where Bible verses, in context, teach to advance Christianity with violence.

      Do people misinterpret the Bible? Yep. Sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of malice. I address fake Christians here all the time.

      I’ve written over 1,000 posts on this blog. Go ahead and search for one that advocates against free speech, shutting down Mosques or imprisoning those of other faiths. I’m all for letting people share their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. Christianity is based on reason and fact and thrives in that atmosphere.

      I think the Army should examine the background and behaviors of professing Muslims. In this case, it appears that he should not have been serving in the Army. But there are plenty of nominal/cultural/fake Muslims just as there are Christians of the same stripes.

      I have reasons to believe in the Muslim conspiracy. I believe that you are visiting from Stereotype Land and do not have fully informed opinions on Islam or Christianity.

      Reply
    • Neil, on November 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pm Said:

      Yes, you can refer to abortion clinic bombers — the handful of them. Be sure to refer to the pro-life groups that immediately denounce them AND use scripture, in context, to support their points.

      Then refer to the pro-lifer killed for his views, and note the silence of Obama, the pro-aborts and the fake Christians over that one — http://www.lifenews.com/state4409.html .

      Also refer to the fake Christians who say Jesus favors legalized abortion, and bless the 3,000+ innocent human beings crushed and dismembered in the U.S. each day. Hey, at least Muslims are pro-life with respect to the unborn.

      Reply
    • Neil, on November 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm Said:

      BTW, my closest friend at work is a Muslim. We go to lunch every week or so and often talk about Jesus — Jihad free! My guess is that he’ll be a Christian someday, but that is ultimately up to the Holy Spirit.

      I also have an employee I hired who is a Muslim. We get along great. I pray for him to convert as well.

      I am very careful to understand what they believe and why they believe it. I’ll say, “Here’s my understanding about Islam’s view on _____. Is that correct?” I’m not an expert on Islam, but for the record I’ve been right 100% of the time so far. One even noted that I knew more than he did about an important passage in the Koran.

      You might want to do some more legwork yourself before implying how shallow and simplistic my analysis is and how poorly informed you think I am. I can’t address every nuance of every issue in every post.

      So go back and re-read the original. I claimed that Islam permits people to lie to advance their faith. If you think I’m wrong, prove it. Same thing for the other claims.

      Reply
  8. befuddled2, on November 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pm Said:

    You asked for seperate verses that could be taken out of the Bible that could and historically have been used to justify killing? Here are a few of many whose intent, like the verses you quoted from the Qur’an, seem very clear:

    Deuteronomy 17:12 (New International Version)
    12 The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel.

    Leviticus 20:27 (New International Version)

    27 ” ‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’ ”

    Deuteronomy 13:6-17 (New International Version)

    6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

    12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

    This last one is very clear, if your family member converts to another religion – kill them. If a town converts to another religion kill everyone in the town.

    That is a sampling of verses – verses that have been used to justify the killing of witches, pogroms, and the killing of non-Christians.

    There are more. And then there are the examples of Joshua where the unbelievers were killed to the last man, woman, and child.

    Again, there are plenty of verses that can be used to justify acts of violence against non believers. Whether rightly or not is not my argument. My argument is that the Bible can also be selectively quoted to provide support for acts most Christians today would disagree with.

    In regards to your prolifer killed for his views, the man who killed him was more riled at the fact that he was doing it outside of schools than his views per se, and the killer was also out to kill other people who had upset him. He was not killed solely for his pro-life views.

    And again, my point was not a defence of pro-life or pro-choice but rather an illustration of how religion, any religion, can be used to justify terrorist and violent acts.

    And I am glad to hear that you are not advocating kicking the Muslims out of the military or advocating making them second class citizens. However your words could be and have been by others used as justification for such arguments. In fact I saw a letter to the editor in my local newspaper today advocating keeping the Muslims out of the military.

    Reply
  9. Neil, on November 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm Said:

    I already addressed the clearing out of the promised land.

    My apologies, but I should have been more specific: You need to cite something from the New Testament. The whole Bible is the word of God, but your OT passages were directed at a Jewish theocracy, set apart by God with unique roles and expectations. They were to take the message of God to the whole world and had to be above reproach and undefiled. God gave particular rules to them but they don’t apply to other religions. See Leviticus 18, for examples of rules God expected all people to follow, and see the rest of the book for Israelite-specific laws.

    Now, to be fair, you are welcome to show me how the Koranic verses only apply to Muslims in a particular place and at a particular time.

    My argument is that the Bible can also be selectively quoted to provide support for acts most Christians today would disagree with.

    We agree on that. So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the the Koran is being taken out of context by these violent Muslims.

    Also, demonstrate to me how they are misinterpreting the teaching permitting them to lie to advance Islam.

    However your words could be and have been by others used as justification for such arguments.

    I’ll take that chance ;-) .

    Reply
  10. befuddled2, on November 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm Said:

    The question under discussion was are there verses in the Bible that could be cited promoting violence in the furtherance of religion?

    The clear answer on this question is emphatically yes.

    Just as in the Qur’an, verses from the Bible can be found that promote violdence against those who believe differently. Old Testament or New Testament doesn’t matter in this context.

    Notice how quickly you responded about conditions and context for the quotes I provided. But to someone outside of Christianity – would they be familair with these? Are all Christians familiar with them? Do all Christians believe them? Historically that would be a no to all of those questions.

    Yes, you think you can explain these and their attendant moral problems away (I would personally disagree), but there are Muslims who say the same about the verses you have provided from the Qur’an. To use these quotes as your evidence for the violence of Islam would be the same as someone using the quotes I provided to prove the violence of Christianity. More evidence is needed other than verses taken away from context.

    Just for fun though here are some items from the New Testament:

    Matthew 5:17 (New International Version)

    17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    It does not sound as if Jesus repudiated the Old Testament laws here.

    Hebrews 10:28-29 (New International Version)

    28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

    Mark 7:9-10 (New International Version)

    9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[b] and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’[c]

    Luke 19:26-27 (New International Version)

    26″He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

    Should you look at the history of Christianity all of the above verses plus more that I have not quoted have been used as justification for the killing and mistreatment of those who believe differently.

    As for your challenge let me ask you – have you read those sites that promote a more peaceful interpretation of the Qur’an? That argue, as you did for the Biblical verses I quoted, that they have been taken out of context?

    I have already stated I am not an expert in Islam. Nor do I look to become one any time soon to respond point by point. I do intend to read the whole Qur’an, as I have the Bible, sometime soon. But not today.

    However I do know that there are Muslims, many of them, who do not interpret the Qur’an as you do and who have spoken out against terrorism. I do know that we have thousands of soldiers who have served and many who have given their lives for this country who are Muslim.

    For now – given my knowledge of how the Bible has been used and is still being used, my knowledge of Christian history, and my knowledge about nationalism and how it can influence and subvert religious thought (witness the struggle in Ireland between Protestants and Catholics), and the history of the Middle East – I am willing to let their words and actions testify for me on this issue.

    Reply
    • Neil, on November 7th, 2009 at 6:04 pm Said:

      Notice how quickly you responded about conditions and context for the quotes I provided. But to someone outside of Christianity – would they be familair with these? Are all Christians familiar with them? Do all Christians believe them? Historically that would be a no to all of those questions.

      So what? Unless you subscribe to postmodern idiocy then you just work through the text to see what it really means. Otherwise, I could read your comments and reply, “Thanks for confirming all my comments in the post and below. We agree on everything, including the fact that Islam preaches violence at its core and that Christianity does not.”

      but there are Muslims who say the same about the verses you have provided from the Qur’an.

      OK. So let’s dig deeper into the debate. Plenty of sites on the Interwebz for that, if you really care.

      It does not sound as if Jesus repudiated the Old Testament laws here.

      The moral laws never go away.

      Re. Hebrews — yes, you will be in Hell for eternity if you reject God’s grace offered through Jesus. Same for Luke. They don’t even hint that Christians would carry that out.

      Re. Mark — who was He talking to? Jews.

      As for your challenge let me ask you – have you read those sites that promote a more peaceful interpretation of the Qur’an?

      I’ve read plenty about Islam.

      I do know that we have thousands of soldiers who have served and many who have given their lives for this country who are Muslim.

      Good for them. I thank God for disobedient Muslims.

      Reply
    • Marshall Art, on November 7th, 2009 at 8:02 pm Said:

      Befuddled2,

      An appropriate moniker considering your befuddled understanding of Scripture. Quickly, for you OT tracts, you must keep in mind that what was done to atone for sin was no longer required with the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Other verses, as has been suggested earlier, have to do with explicit directives to a specific people at a specific time and are NOT mandates for anyone else. Yes. Some have used them to justify sinfulness, but not from a real interpretation.

      Your NT examples are similarly misunderstood. For example, Christ fulfilling the law doesn’t necessarily mean that He is doing so by maintaining the means of enacting them. By this I mean the atonement of His sacrifice takes care of how WE atone for sin by our faith in Him and our acceptance of Him as Lord and Savior. To put it another way, we sin, the wages of sin is death, but His death on the cross being the perfect sacrifice eliminates and makes worthless any death sacrifice or atonement by death that we could offer. (A rather clumsy explanation, but I’m hustling so as to catch the Bulls tip-off)

      Your Luke 19 verse is especially noteworthy for being part of a parable, a story, not a mandate to anyone whatsoever. To use THAT to justify any killing would is simply goofy.

      The bottom line is that there is no verse that directly tells anyone to kill to further the faith. None whatsoever. There are such verses in the Qur’an. This has been demonstrated by people like Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.com and former Muslims, such as Ergun Kaner. As Neil said, we can be thankful that not all Muslims adhere to those verses. Too bad that Muslims that are less devout are better for the world than are Christians who are less devout.

      Reply
  11. befuddled2, on November 8th, 2009 at 12:13 am Said:

    You are nicely proving my point about using isolated Qur’an texts devoid of context and commentary to paint ALL of Islam as violent.

    I have posted individual verses from the Bible devoid of context and commentary and you have to rush to explain why, what a plain reading of those words alone would seem to mean, is not really what it is meaning. To justify your claim that there are no verses in the Bible that justify killing people to further the faith you have to provide interpretation (although I must say in regards to Luke 19 – aren’t the purposes of parables to teach proper ways to think and behave?) to the plain intent of the verses. The verses by themselves do not do so.

    Do you not think the same applies to the Qur’an and Islam?

    And yes there are those in Islam who would interpret those passages as condoning violence. But there have been Christians and Christian governments who have interpreted many of the verses I cited to condone violence. Would you like me to list them – the pogroms, the witch trials, the burnings at the stakes, the hangings, the wars, the wholesale killings? They make quite a list.

    Just as you two, Marshall and Neil, disagree with such a violent interpretation of the Bible and Christianity, there are those in Islam who strongly disagree with such violent interpretations of the Qur’an and Islam.

    Your claim that it is only the disobedient or less devout Muslims who feel this way in regards to Islam does not do justice to those who believe this – it belittles their faith and the depth of their beliefs. And that is what I am arguing against.

    I am arguing that you are doing injustice to the full depth and range of Muslim thought. That you are taking isolated passages and seeing it through only one set of eyes and denying the possibility that there are other valid ways to view these passages – just as there are other ways to view those troubling passages that have you so much in arms from the Bible.

    To not see this is to make us partially blind in a time when we need to see clearly if we want to find a way to improve the situation.

    Marshall – you used my moniker to belittle my views. Yet you incorrectly assumed that the purpose of my posting was in showing the Bible condones violence against unbelievers.

    However that was clearly NOT the purpose of my post. The purpose was to show that it is possible to select verses from the Bible and present it in the same light as what has been presented here for the Qur’an and Islam.

    By not seeing this you have shown that you were not reading it with an eye for understanding. I would say that although my moniker is befuddled you have shown yourself to be the true befuddled one here.

    Reply
    • Adam, on November 8th, 2009 at 11:00 am Said:

      I usually don’t comment on Neil’s blog because the other commenters here are (I think) more lucid and coherent about the topics Neil blogs about. Regarding issues about Islam, though, I usually pipe up and contribute my own thoughts, because it is something I have a personal interest in as well as plenty of opportunities to witness and befriend Muslim people.

      I think you are missing one serious point, Befuddled, regarding Islam and interpreting the Quran. Within Islamic scholarship, there is no interpretation allowed. The text says what it says and cannot be interpreted. It is repeated, memorized, but never analysed or criticized. It is never allowed to be translated into any other language. Sure, there are English versions of the Quran, but these are not considered canonical. Only the 1300 year old Arabic of Mohammed is permitted to be considered authoritative. There is no such thing as hermeneutics within Islam – the text is to be recited, not understood. Western scholarship has influenced the development of Islamic studies in the West, and your understanding of Islam is colored because of it. The Islam that exists in the Arabian peninsula (considered to be the seat of Islamic jurisprudence) is much more cognitively restrictive than the Islam the theocrats prefer to show the world.

      Further, if you want to see the examples of Muslims who lived before there was a Quran, research Mohammed and his generals. They had no Quran to (mis)interpret yet they did invade, enslave, and slaughter most of the known world. They had the example of the founder of the faith to guide them and nothing more.

      Mohammed himself is explicity recorded using violence and encouraging violence against non-Muslims time and again in order to force their conversion. It is therefore very difficult for one to just disagree with the violence encouraged by the founding father of Islam and compare the text with the Bible.

      Reply
  12. Neil, on November 8th, 2009 at 8:44 am Said:

    Befuddled2, you are just going in circles. No one is disputing that things can be taken out of context. I offered evidence that Islam is violent when you read the passages in context. Just because the Bible or the Koran are capable of being misunderstood does not mean they are incapable of being understood.

    Reply
  13. befuddled2, on November 8th, 2009 at 12:03 pm Said:

    Their have been several statements made about Muslims on this thread – you cannot trust what they say, that only bad or those of weak faith can be trusted that it is of necessity of violent religion and by implication will always promote violence to further its aims.

    I am addressing those claims.

    Adam, as for other movements you are incorrect. There are several such. Wikipedia has a good article on this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam

    Reply
  14. Adam, on November 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pm Said:

    Ah yes, the real question arises: Who speaks for Islam?

    And the wikipedia link is revealing. Read the final paragraph, regarding the reliance on secular scholarship to base the Liberal movement’s ideology upon, and the rejection of historical, traditional, Mohammed-inspired thought.

    It has been my experience that most Muslims are not devout followers of Mohammed. Most Muslims that I have met do not read the Quran, especially the younger more secularized demographic. Do they speak for Islam? Or does Mohammed speak for it? Are they taking Islam where Mohammed intended – the thriving nightclubs in Beirut, where women can get loans for breast augmentations easier than mortgages – or is are theocratic mutawwas in Saudi Arabia more identical to the Islam of Mohammed?

    You tell me.

    The traditional, conservative, cognitively imprisoned religion in Saudi is more historically aligned with Mohammed’s life and message than are the lifestyles of most modern, Westernized alcohol-drinking Muslims of today. The liberal movements are running on secular scholarship, abandon Islamic teaching regarding philosophy, history, economics and science. They agree with the macro-evolution theory. They part from Islam on every single one of these critical issues.

    Sure there are liberal movements within Islam, however Muslims who pray 5 times a day, fast during Ramadan, believe Allah created the world along the Biblical lines etc. do not agree with you that the liberals represent Islam. And I would take their word for it over yours.

    Reply
  15. befuddled2, on November 8th, 2009 at 2:21 pm Said:

    Would you say that most Christians lives fully reflect Biblical values? And whose Biblical values? That they do daily Bible readings, go to church every Sunday? Do you really believe the Jesus would be good with the mass of Christians today, with the church today? That Jesus would be good with modern culture?

    I would further say that Christians rely on secular scholarship too. There is no Christian economics, no Christian history, no Christian science. At one time there was – all history was based on the Bible, all science was based on the Bible and so forth. It is because Christianity moved away from that thinking that caused its more violent forms to start to die away. I did mention earlier the effects of the enlightenmnet.

    I will agree that most of the Arabic governments are governed by the more conservative traditions, although there are significant liberal movements in there.

    My argument is that instead of dissing all of Islam and giving up on it as all being violent we should be encouraging the religously liberal Muslims and encouraging their version of the enlightenment.

    We should not be saying that these are not good Muslims and are lacking in faith. No more than you would call yourselves bad Christians or lacking in faith because you do not interpret the Bible in the same manner as those in the 17th century and before did.

    I will point out some assumptions of yours that are wrong because you believe these people are not as strong in their faith and beliefs.

    Many of them do pray 5 times a day and fast during Ramadan. And while acknowledge evolution the great majority of them are creationists – although on this one I think creationists whether of Muslim or Christian variety are wrong in the fact that evolution has to be atheistic.

    Reply
    • Adam, on November 9th, 2009 at 3:21 am Said:

      You are missing the point again. There is no such thing as a true liberal Muslim, because what is required of a human being in Islam is total obedience to a literal reading of the Quran. Christianity does not operate under the same guidelines that Islam does (must fast for 30 days of the year from the time one can distinguish between a black thread and a white one until the moon sets on the horizon, must pray EXACTLY 5 times a day facing a certain direction, must abstain from X food and X drink, must eat with the right hand, must walk in front of women if you are male and behind men if you are female, must pray ONLY in a certain language as Allah, must not portray any image of anything at all because this is ‘idolatry’ , must, must, must etc), so you pointing a finger at liberal Christians and how closely they follow ‘the rules’ has zero bearing on the topic at hand.

      Islamic political theory is violent. It has been from the time the Quryash tribe in Mecca rejected Mohammed’s demand for them to submit to him and Allah.

      There never was such a thing as a Christian economy because Christianity concerns itself with the spiritual wellfare of it’s people. Islam is not so concerned with the spiritual well being of anything, so long as everyone submits and follows the rules. Again you make a false comparison because you fundamentally do not understand Islam. For you to claim that Christianity used to be violent is also false, for neither the Christ nor His followers used, encouraged, or advocated violence on behalf of Christianity. The same cannot be said for Islam. Therefore Christians themselves who claimed violence in the name of God were and are (if you can dredge up any examples) mistaken.

      Since when is modern Western culture considered Christian, and by whom?

      These significant liberal movements within Islam – the Future Movement in Lebanon comes to mind – deny the Islam of Mohammed. For one to claim these are legitimate representatives of Islam is quite the stretch.

      Reply
  16. Neil, on November 8th, 2009 at 6:39 pm Said:

    Listen to this — an unapologetic Muslim who “worshiped” with the killer — http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/11/08/duane-the-american-muslim-understands-american-knows-we-will-forget/ .

    He is right in a sense — even more than he realizes. Many libs weren’t even outraged for 5 minutes.

    Reply
  17. befuddled2, on November 8th, 2009 at 8:12 pm Said:

    First you want to have at least some Muslims apologizing and speaking out against these acts. When they do you blow them off because you cannot trust any Muslim’s words.

    Then when a Muslim speaks and says he will not condemn the actions of Nidal Hassan he is taken as representative. I did notice that the reporter said that he was very much the minority opinion, in fact the only one to express such opinions.

    And I like your characterization of him as an unapologetic Muslim. I would be very surprised if any in the Mosque who condemned the actions of Major Nidal Hassan were willing to apologize for being Muslim – only for the wrong actions of their fellow believers. Much as you would for those Christians who bomb abortion clinics or protest a soldiers funerals.

    Oh the picture I could paint of Christianity were I to employ such tactics.

    Reply
    • Neil, on November 8th, 2009 at 8:40 pm Said:

      I don’t completely dismiss Muslims who speak out against the acts. I just pointed out that by their own doctrine we have reason to question the authenticity of groups like CAIR. So either demonstrate where I misunderstand that doctrine or blame them, not me. You couldn’t “employ such tactics” against Christianity because they don’t exist.

      Re. “unapologetic” — I wasn’t saying he didn’t apologize for being a Muslim, just his attitude about the attacks.

      Reply
  18. Neil, on November 8th, 2009 at 9:14 pm Said:

    Obama’s reaction to this and the military in general has been inconsistent with his campaign promises –http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2009/11/why_obama_doesn.html .

    Shocking.

    Reply
    • Adam, on November 9th, 2009 at 3:26 am Said:

      I couldn’t believe my ears and eyes when I viewed his address on the topic. “A shout out”?!?!?

      A pregnant woman is shot by a fanatic and the President gives a shout out to someone.
      You’d think that a Nobel Peace Prize winner would be a little more astute than that.

      Reply
  19. Neil, on November 9th, 2009 at 8:12 am Said:

    Seems like you get better reporting on this from the UK than from the NY Times — http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/11/09/fish-wrap-proclaims-ft-hood-not-a-terrorist-attack-move-along/

    Reply
  20. befuddled2, on November 10th, 2009 at 7:31 pm Said:

    I had not planned to start looking into Islam and the Qur’an yet. I had hoped that by showing you that Islam is not of necessity a violent religion, that the Bible had verses that could be taken as promoting violence against those who did not believe, and that those verses had historically been used as justification for both violence against and killing of unbelievers that you might start to question some of your assumptions and do a bit more research. However since that is apparently not going to happen I will do the work now for you.

    Lets take the verses one by one. My source for both the Qur’an and commentary is http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm

    Qur’an 16:106 – Whoso disbelieves in Allah after his belief – not he who is compelled while his heart is content with the faith, but he who opens his breast for disbelief – on them is the wrath of Allah, and for them is a grievous chastisement.

    Note that your reference has it wrong. Your reference says this verse details circumstances which “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie. However this verse says a Muslim may tell a lie if under compulsion. Here is the commentary of this verse.

    Commentary – “Only very rare circumstances are met with early in the history of Islam in which the converts even under compulsion ever recanted. For instance, Yasir and Sumayyah, husband and wife, suffered death at the hands of the disbelievers because they would not recant, the latter being put to death most cruelly, her legs being tied to two camels which were made to run in opposite directions. Their son Ammar, however, was not so resolute. The cruelest persecutions were inflicted on those slaves who had become converts to Islam. Muir says: “These were seized and imprisoned, or they were exposed upon the scorching gravel of the valley to the intense glare of the midday sun. The torment was enhanced by intolerable thirst, until the wretched sufferers scarcely knew what they said.” Yet even under these trying circumstances, which would have maddened even the most resolute man, there were those among these slave-converts who were as firm as a mountain; as in the case of Bilal, of whom it is recorded that “in the depth of his anguish the persecutors could force out of him but one expression, Ahad! Ahad! (One, One God) (Muir)

    So this verse, far from detailing when a Muslim is compelled to lie, instead allows him to lie if under extreme duress.

    Qur’an 3:28 – Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah – except that you guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully. And Allah cautions you against his retribution. And to Allah is the eventual coming.

    Commentary – The Muslims, being in a state of war with the disbelievers, were forbidden to look to their enemies to guard their interests or for help of any kind. The clear statement made in 60: 8, 9 settles the point beyond all doubt. “Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly… Allah forbids you only respecting those who fight you for your religion and drive you forth from your homes, and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them.

    In short Muslims can and have been friends with unbelievers. It is not against the Qur’an. Now the radical Muslims interpret the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as a holy war of Christianity against Islam and will therefore interpret this verse rather broadly. However most Muslims do not.

    I will make one more point here. Just as the Bible has to be looked at holistically to get a proper understanding of what each verse means so too does the Qur’an. If you treat the Bible the same as you are doing with the Qur’an then Christianity can be used to justify many atrocities. It has in the past been used so.

    Qur’an 9:3 – And an announcement from Allah and his Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is free from liability to the idolaters, and so is his Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you: and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape Allah. And announce painful chastisement to those who disbelief.

    It seems your source and you did not bother to read the very next verse.

    Qur’an 9: 4 – Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.

    In other words if they break their word to you then you are not obliged to honor your word to them. If they keep true to their word then you have to keep true to yours. How is that different than what we do?

    Qur’an 40:28 – And a believing man of Pharaoh’s people, who hid his faith, said: Will you slay a man because he says, My Lord is Allah, and indeed he has brought you clear arguments from your Lord? And if he be a liar, on him will be his lie, and if he be truthful, there will befall you some of that which he threatens you with. Surely Allah guides not one who is prodigal, a liar.

    And this is an instruction for the believer to hide his faith from the non-believers? Especially with the admonition about Allah not backing a liar. The Qur’an is telling a story not giving instructions here.

    Should you take the time to read the surrounding context this story is the story of Moses. This verse relates a conversation that a believer had with the Pharaoh about Moses. He is arguing with the Pharaoh for Moses.

    Qur’an 2:225 – Allah will not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but he will call you to account for what your hearts have earned. And Allah is forgiving, forbearing.

    Commentary – By vain oaths are meant unintentional or thoughtless oaths in ordinary conversation, and by what the hearts have earned is meant an oath intentionally taken.

    In other words if a Muslim swears an oath then he is held accountable for it by Allah.

    Qur’an 66:2 – So when they have reached their prescribed time, retain them with kindness or dismiss them with kindness, and call to witness two just one from among you, and give upright testimony for Allah. With that is admonished he who believes in Allah and the latter day. And whoever keeps his duty to Allah, he ordains a way out for him.

    This time it seems instead of not reading the next verse he did not read the verse ahead of it.

    Qur’an 66:1 – O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed period, and calculate the period; and keep your duty to Allah, your Lord. Turn them not out of their houses – nor should they themselves go forth – unless they commit an open indecency. And these are the limits of Allah. And whoever goes beyond the limits of Allah, he indeed wrongs his own soul. Thou knowest not that Allah may after that bring about an event.

    Read in context – something your source is very much not interested in doing – this is talking about marriage and divorce. I do not fully understand the Qur’an ideas about marriage but apparently there are limits on when divorce is allowed and it is this to which 66:2 is referring to. From quickly looking at it there are times when you are allowed to divorce and other times you are not allowed to divorce. Here is the commentary on 66:1 to help give a little more information about marriage.

    Commentary – The prescribed time is ordinarily, according to 2:228, three courses. But in the case of woman with child, and in certain other cases, the prescribed time is laid down in v. 4 of this chapter. It should be noted how every direction in connection with the subject of divorce is followed by the injunction “keep your duty to Allah”, throughout this chapter. The utmost carefulness must be exercised in the matter of divorce. Divorce is allowed but the right must be used sparingly and under exceptional circumstances.

    Qur’an 3:54 – And (the Jews) planned and Allah (also) planned. And Allah is the best of planners.

    It think it might be interesting to go on to the next verse so that you can see what this verse is talking about.

    Qur’an 3:55 – When Allah said: Oh Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt thee in My presence and clear thee of those who disbelieve and make those who follow thee above those who disbelieve to the day of the Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, so I shall decide between you concerning that wherein you differ.

    Commentary – Makr is explained by R as the turning of another with ingenuity or skill from that which he aims at, and he considers makr as two sorts, a good one and an evil one. Therefore the best interpretation of makara (including both sorts) is that adopted by T, viz. he exercised craft, cunning, art or skill in the management or ordering of affairs with excellent consideration or deliberation, and ability to manage according to his own free will (LL)……Allah is here called Khair al-makirin or the Best of Planners, the qualifying word khair being inapplicable to an evil object.

    Nothing here about deceit. Instead, as in the Bible, this is stating that God took the evil idea of killing Jesus and turned it into something good and great instead.

    Taken collectively this shows that your source is quote mining – lifting bits and pieces out of context and using them to paint a false picture. Both your source and you misunderstand these verses.

    I was going to quote the Qur’an on honesty but this is getting too long and there are some more things I wish to say. So instead of quoting I will just state that there are many many verses on the importance of honesty. Much more than the purported verses for lying that you posted as reference. I will however just quote this from the Saheeh Al-Bukhari, a hadith of the Sunni Muslims. In fact it is considered one of the six canonical hadiths of the Sunni’s.

    “Truthfulness leads to righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise. In addition, a man keeps on telling the truth until he becomes a truthful person. Falsehood leads to wickedness and evil-doing, and wickedness leads to the (Hell) Fire, and a man may keep on telling lies till he is written before God, as a liar”. (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)

    Adam, here are some answers to several of your points.

    You say that Muslims are not allowed to interpret the Quar’an. That is not only untrue but impossible. All written works are interpreted and you will never find unanimous interpretation on any complex important work. Witness Christianity. Even those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible disagree on what it says.

    Islam has no central governing body, no central authority for making sure that all Muslims are thinking the same. There are four main sects – Sufism, Sunni, Shiite, and Ahmadiyya. And within each these there is a diversity of thought on how to interpret the Qur’an and relate it to modern life. There is not even one standard version of the Qur’an between the four sects – or even within one sect. As I discovered during my research on the above verses. I chose the one favored by most of the Ahmadiyya sect. It was online and had a convenient commentary and is well respected.

    A religion is what its followers make of it. At first Christianity was very violent and won more converts through the sword than through preaching. They converted rulers and the rulers made sure that their subjects, whether they wished it or not, became Christian. Those that did not were killed or expelled.

    Now though Christian religion has changed and those verses once used to justify these violent acts are no longer commonly interpreted in this manner.

    Liberal Islam is pointing the way towards a non-violent Islam. Similar to the changes that took place in interpreting the Bible in the Enlightenment times. You say that political Islam is violent – I have pointed out that at one time so was Christian. I have also pointed out that there is an Islamic alternative.

    I have said that verses in the Bible were used to justify violence conversions. For examples you only have to look at history. A good one would be the pogrom’s against Jews in the 12th – 14th centuries where thousands of Jews were given the “choice” of either converting to Christianity or being burned alive. Where Christians built buildings for the purpose of herding Jews into and then burning them alive because they would not convert. That is one of very many possible examples.

    Should you want some more modern examples – abortion clinic bombers, those protesting at soldiers funerals, those that promote the killing of witches and gays

    Here is a link to an article about Christians in Africa who mutilate and kill their own children because they believe they are witches and “thou shall not suffer a witch to live”.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver

    And yes, I know you will say that these pastors are not real Christians. But the congregation is. And the verse that they are following is from the Bible.

    Whether you agree or not with these people, whether you agree or not that they are Christian, they thought themselves Christian. And they use the Bible to justify themselves. And at one time in Christian history their views were the majority.

    In many ways your saying that there is no such thing as a liberal Muslim reminds me of some of the creation/evolution disputes.

    There are creationists who say that no Christian can believe in evolution and that any who do are not Christian. They are false Christians. And then there are atheists who also say that evolution and science disproves Christianity. And they both reinforce their opponents point of view. They both ignore and do not deal with the fact that there is a way to be both Christian and support evolution and that millions of people and thousands of scientists do so.

    You and radical Islam are in the same situation. You both deny there any third option exists.

    What we need to do instead of denying that there is any such thing as Liberal Islam is welcome them and find ways to help them become the majority view.

    To continue to view Islam as inherently and inescapably violent and a religion of liars leaves only one option – and that is a religious war. Which is what the radical Muslims have said all along that we are engaged in – with some support form conservative Christian comments and views like your own. If that happens then for you to continue to say that you still support Muslims in the military, that you support their free speech and full participation in American rights would become contradictory.

    I do not believe that this is the true case. That is not reality. I know that Liberal Islam is real and not a deception. Talking with Muslims around us should enlighten us to this fact (my older daughter had a close friend in high school who was Muslim, and my younger daughter had some casual friends who were too). I have provided the start of such evidence that it is here. Should you chose to stay in the simplistic comfort of your biases instead of dealing with a more complex situation, that is your choice.

    A final suggestion for you – quit relying so heavily on 2nd hand sources. Spend some time and effort seeking out the other side. Go to the primary sources such as the Qur’an and its commentaries and look for yourslelf.

    It is not difficult to find out that Islam is not monolithic, that they have serious disagreements between each other, that there is no definitive version of the Qur’an. Yet you seem not to know this.

    Reply
    • Neil, on November 10th, 2009 at 7:42 pm Said:

      I had not planned to start looking into Islam and the Qur’an yet. I had hoped that by showing you that Islam is not of necessity a violent religion, that the Bible had verses that could be taken as promoting violence against those who did not believe, and that those verses had historically been used as justification for both violence against and killing of unbelievers that you might start to question some of your assumptions and do a bit more research. However since that is apparently not going to happen I will do the work now for you

      Thank you for your condescension and especially your demonstration of your supreme copy and paste skills. Very nice. I read the opening and closing paragraphs, so if there is something else in there I’ll give it a pass.

      Seriously, if that was your mission you failed miserably. I readily concede that people can take things out of context, which is why I write about how to interpret the Bible properly and do posts like this — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/contextualists-not-literalists/ .

      The Koran teaches violence. Islam began with violence, spread with violence and is violent to this day. “Liberal Islam” is almost as good as “Liberal Christianity” is bad. By that I mean Liberal Islam is not Islam (yea!) and Liberal Christianity is not Christianity (boo!).

      Who said we deny there is a Liberal Islam? I didn’t use that phrase, but I was quite clear that I am thankful for non-traditional Muslims. My point stands that their doctrine states that you can lie to advance Islam, so you should use extreme discernment in analyzing their views. You can never be completely sure that they are Liberal or fakes. Consider the 9/11 terrorists and how they gave up Islamic traditions to fit in.

      Reply
      • Ryan, on November 10th, 2009 at 10:11 pm Said:

        Neil, I probably agree with you, mostly, on this topic, but you tear me a new one every time I speak in an authoritative way about topics on which I’m well educated. I think you have a right to defend Christianity, given your knowledge of the subject, and I think think you have the right to do so with vigour.

        Reply
  21. befuddled2, on November 10th, 2009 at 8:08 pm Said:

    I am sorry if I came across as condenscending. I spent considerable amount of time researching the varieties of Islam and Qur’ans as well as the verses you said proved that Muslims are bound by their religion to lie to unbelievers.

    In regards to liberal Islam I believe that was Adam. I was using one post to answer both.

    Had you taken the time to read the bits in between you will find that the Qur’an does NOT say that you can lie to advance Islam. I used the quotes themselve, the verses before and after, and a commentary to show this. Just as you requested.

    Given what you say about Liberal Christianity then I am very much afraid that my creationist/evolution metaphor will hold true. You and radical Islam will continue to reinforce each others beliefs and you both will continue to ignore, to the detriment of both faiths, the FACT that something more exists. .

    Reply
    • Adam, on November 11th, 2009 at 2:49 am Said:

      A couple of things…I use no secondary sources. I use Imams and my Muslim friends, which I am surrounded by here in Abu Dhabi. I use Christian Arabs who read and understand the Uthmanic Quran, which is considered the sole authoritative version in Sunni Islam, the largest (by far) sect of Islam. There has been no central point of authority of Islam since the fall of the Caliphate, and there will be no central point of authority until the return of it along with the 12th Imam. According to the Sunni tradition.

      Further, you are flatly wrong to claim that interpretation/analysis of the Quran is permissible within true Mohammed-inspired Islam. These are the words of Allah, and as such cannot be interpreted or molded in any way by humans.

      How was early Christianity violent? Was it when the early Christians were being fed to lions, or set on fire to light the streets of the Emperor’s palace?

      In regards to lying and deceit, the Quran does encourage hudna’s. I’ll leave that one for you to figure out with your English translations.

      I agree that Islam is not a monolithic faith that is shared equally by the billion or so adherents of it. I know literally dozens of Muslims who question their faith and the contradictions and logical fallacies contained therein on a daily basis. However they do not talk about this inner struggle with their fellow Muslims, as critical thinking about Islam is. not. allowed. within. Islam. You may read books that tell you it is. Fine. The reality on the ground is not what is published in Western books. You will probably never realise that until you see the reality on the ground for yourself.

      I’m not sure how else to communicate that. There are individual Muslims who, after they are comfortable with you and trust you, will open up and talk about all the questions they have about their belief system. These people live in Baghdad, they live in Tripoli, they live in Muscat, they live in Tunis. However, in their daily, public lives, not a word is breathed to their family/friends, because thinking in such a way about Islam is doubting, and doubting is apostasy.

      Reply
  22. Neil, on November 10th, 2009 at 8:12 pm Said:

    Hi Befuddled,

    Thanks for the clarification, but I really don’t think we’re that far off. We seem to agree that a thing exists that we can refer to as “Liberal Islam,” which is non-violent, or at least less violent.

    Reply
  23. befuddled2, on November 10th, 2009 at 8:42 pm Said:

    “My point stands that their doctrine states that you can lie to advance Islam”

    That is incorrect.

    Liberal Islam” is almost as good as “Liberal Christianity” is bad. By that I mean Liberal Islam is not Islam (yea!) and Liberal Christianity is not Christianity (boo!).

    That too is incorrect.

    I would say we have some substantial disagreements here.

    Reply
    • Neil, on November 10th, 2009 at 8:56 pm Said:

      Both your source and you misunderstand these verses.

      It is hard to take you seriously. It seems that my source, and me, and about a billion Muslims misunderstand them. I encourage you to broaden your research horizons from the Muslim apologist website. Remember, they are allowed to lie, which includes lying to folks like you!

      Reply
  24. befuddled2, on November 11th, 2009 at 12:10 am Said:

    Have you read my response to the Qur’an verses your source gave to support this claim that they are allowed to lie? If so then you would know that I did not get my information from a Muslim apologist website. I went to the Qur’an.

    And for most of the verses, looking at the verses either ahead or following it provided a good and clear explanation.

    Further the commentary I used was written in 1951, well before websites and the current controversy. I knew that you would try to use this as an excuse to not read what I had found and purposely avoided Muslim apologetics websites.

    On my part I find it hard to take someone seriously who does not do his own research. I spent a considerable amount of time researching the Qur’an and Islam and the history of both. I looked at primary documents and at non- Islamic sources as well as Muslim sources.

    Now I am not an expert. But I have learned enough to know (something I had suspected, but now have verified) that statements such as “billion Muslims” misunderstand them is seriously out of touch. The idea that they are monolithic is ridicoulous and seriously out of touch with reality.

    There are four major sects of Islam. And within the four there are a variety of different thoughts and interpretations of the Qur’an and how it is to be implemented.

    Taking a look at Muslim countries shows this. You have Turkey and Jordan with a more liberal interpretation of the Qur’an than that of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Indonesia alone has several different political groups of Muslim (most of them either Sunni or Shi’a) that hold views that run the whole range from radical (minority view) to very liberal (again minority view) with most falling somewhere in between.

    In short you should really do more research from other sources.

    Reply
    • Dan, on November 12th, 2009 at 12:52 am Said:

      Befuddled

      TO make the following statement is understandable and likely true fore for most.

      “I do not know enough about Islam and the Qur’an to effectively counter what you have said yet .” (2nd comment 11/7)

      But to then say:

      On my part I find it hard to take someone seriously who does not do his own research. I spent a considerable amount of time researching the Qur’an and Islam and the history of both.

      later in the same string seems to me a little bit contradictory.

      Furthermore: the final word “yet” in your first statement suggest that you already know what Neil has said is wrong but have not done the research to prove it. That is hardly an open minded approach to research. Why do the research at all?

      Reply
  25. Adam, on November 11th, 2009 at 2:58 am Said:

    Hi Befuddled,

    I agree that a billion Muslims are in no way a monolith. That notion is ridiculous.

    You are wrong that various countries interpret the Quran differently…they really just don’t care that much about it as others do. Turkey has been officially secular since Autaturk, Iraq is actually one of the most interesting Islamic countries because although they’re virtually all Muslims, their culture and history is really how the people identify themselves. Islam takes a back seat in the private lives of millions of Iraqis. Indonesia has so much of their old religions interspersing with Islam it’s difficult to figure where Sunni ends and pantheism starts.

    But there is a fundamental difference between the ideology of Islam and the people who follow it. I think that this is where you and I part ways. Islam is essentially a cultural expression of desert life on the Arabian peninsula from the 700’s and as such is rooted in the past. Muslims are people like any other. They ascribe (through birth) a certain set of beliefs and they struggle to fit those beliefs into the modern world. I do not envy that.

    Reply
  26. befuddled2, on November 11th, 2009 at 10:59 am Said:

    I will agree that Islam is a cultural expression of desert life on the Arabian Peninsula. The same sort of thing can be said about Judaism too.

    What I am saying is that their beliefs are not as monolithic as you state and never has been. When you read their religious writings, even just those of one sect, you will find a diversity of thought and opinion. There is no one set of Islamic thought held in common by all Muslims. And this has been true throughout their history, it is not a recent phenomena.

    I believe that you are letting the radical Muslims claims and actions influence your beliefs in this regard. It is as if a rigidly fundamentalist Christian claimed that there is and never has been any other way to interpret the Bible and that all the other interpretations are not Christian. Or at least not good Christians.

    In regards to sources, good for you for not using secondary sources. May I point out though that your sources are limited.

    First: What sort of picture do you think a Christian who converted to Islam would give of Christianity?

    Second: You are surrounded by Muslims who believe similarly. I would suggest there is more variety than you think. My mother (age 82) still believes that racial discrimination was not as bad as has been made out in this country because she had black acquaintences and the worse she saw was that they had to come in the back door. Her view was limited so she formed a false impression despite first hand knowledge.

    Third: You acknowledge that there is no central authority yet you do not seem to carry this through to the logical conclusion. No central authority allows diversity and does not promote uniformity.

    In regards to Christianity being violent, I provided several quick mentions of this. I will expand on them a bit here.

    1) Pogroms against Jews. From the 11th up to the 15th century there were numerous pogroms against the Jews. If they did not convert they were burned or otherwise killed.

    During a series of pogroms from 1348 to 1351 over 60 major and 150 minor Jewish communities were wiped out. A favorite method was to build a house and force all the Jews in the community to enter it and then burn it down.

    I will also mention that a yellow marker on clothing to identify Jews was not a Hitler invention. From the 13th century until the 18th century Jews were required to wear a yellow badge on their outer clothing.

    This does not include the more recent pogroms in the 18th – 20th centuries against Jews in Tsarist Russia.

    The Biblical justification, from http://www.levitt.com/essays/bloodlibel.html

    When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of the blood of this Just person. You see to it.” And all the people answered and said, “His blood be upon us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:24–25)

    Matthew 27:25 arguably stands out as one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted passages in all of Holy Scripture. Of the proposed interpretations for Matthew 27:25, the anti-Jewish interpretation is the oldest and most frequently cited in the history of the Church. This view says the Jewish people are permanently guilty and condemned in the eyes of God for their murder of Jesus Christ. As such, the cry of “His blood be upon us” means that the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem admitted full guilt for killing the Lord Jesus Christ and thereby invoked God’s curse upon themselves and their descendants until the end of time. This interpretation first surfaced in the writings of the early church fathers in the second century AD. It became universally accepted by the Middle Ages.

    2) The suppression of Heresies: During its first 300 years Christians were not in charge of the government. Pagan Rome was. Consequently the worse that they could do with heretics – the “false teachers” warned about in the Bible was to expel them from their midst and attach labels to them such as “fools”, “wild dogs”, and “Servants of Satan”. That changed though as Christians took over the government.

    The first person to be executed for heresy was Priscillian of Avila in 385, 60 years after the First Council of Nicaea. I will say that this was at the orders of Emperor Magnus Maximus and over the objections of some Bishops. However Bishops objections did not last.

    St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was the first major proponent of persecution for heresy. At first he was for peaceful methods of persuasion but by 400 he began to endorse coercion. He used Matthew 13:24–30 and
    Luke 14:21–23 as Biblical justification. Later Protestants would use the same Biblical verses to justify their persecutions.

    Everyone has heard of the Spanish Inquisitions, but that was actually only one of many. Linked to the beginnings of the Medieval Inquisition was the Albigensian Crusade of 1220 to 1229 which was a military campaign initiated by the Catholic Church to stamp out the Cathar Heresy in Languedoc.

    Reportedly the last person to be burned for heresy by the Catholic church was Giordano Bruno, executed in 1600.

    3) Do I really need to mention the wars between Catholics and Protestants? The executions of Catholics by Protestants and of Protestants by Catholics?

    4) The killing of witches. Biblical justifications used were Exodus 22:17 and Deut. 18:10-12,

    5) The persecution and executions of Baptists, Quakers and other minority groups in the 17th and 18th centuries. This occurred both in Europe and America. This persecution is one of the reasons why the Pilgrims left Europe for America. And then they started the same with other religious groups once they had established themselves here.

    To summarize you say that Islam is of necessity a religion that endorses lying and violence to further its aims.

    I disagree and have pointed out why. It can be interpreted in such a way but such an interpretation is far from universal among Muslims and always has been. Further I can point to the first 1700 years of Christianity and how it has used violence to further its aims and force conformity.

    It was not until the enlightenment with its separation of Church and State that we see this starting to die out and new interpretations (which had been in existence from the beginning but were not generally accepted by the majority of Christians – very similar to Islam today) were accepted.

    Just because most of today’s Christians eschew violence, in contrast to the views of the majority of Christians throughout most of its history, does not mean that today’s Christians are any less a Christian. Just as those Muslims that do not interpret the Qur’an in the same violent manner as the radical Muslims do are less a Muslim.

    Reply
  27. Adam, on November 12th, 2009 at 12:38 am Said:

    Great post. A couple of things…all sources are limited. I have repeatedly claimed that Islam is not a monolith. I don’t have radical Islamic friends, and the Imams I speak with are all paid by the UAE government, which is fairly anti-extremist, at least on it’s face. It is difficult for me to use radical extremists to influence my view if 100% of the Muslims I work with and spend time with at work and on vacation are not extremist.

    I may not have voiced the logical conclusion of having no central point of authority within Islam, but I did mention that Islam is very different in different countries. Again, this is consistent with my position that Islam is not a monolith. Did you really read my posts?

    Further, I am surrounded by Muslims from Iran, Turkey, Saudi, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Morroco, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Iraq. Now I know that there are more Muslims in the world than I know on a first name basis, however I think that the group of friends I have here are fairly representative of the Muslim population around the world. It is not a limited group of people who live in Abu Dhabi – over 200 countries are represented on an island 25 kilometers long.

    Agreed on most parts, save these:

    Mohammed himself lied and used violence to further his religious aims. Therefore a Muslim without a central point of authority can legitimately use Mohammed as an example. The same cannot be said of Christ or Christians. Christians that do claim Christ as inspiration for violence have no grounding for it, simply because Christ did not use violence and lying to further His religious aims. Those claiming Biblical inspiration are, as the Todd Baker essay pointed out, not reading the text properly. Like Neil said, people can misinterpret anything.

    Yet when Mohammed buries 300 captured men up to their necks in sand and then beheads them before taking their wives to his tents it is becomes difficult to interpret that example in a non-violent way.

    The examples you raise are valid examples of people not living Christ-like lives. And also you make the mistake you claim I am making – there are more Christians and a greater diversity within Christianity than you think. I doubt that the majority of the world’s Christians in previous generations considered violence as an appropriate means to encourage people to convert.

    Reply
  28. befuddled2, on November 12th, 2009 at 12:59 am Said:

    Just a quick comment. I was off work on vacation for the past 2 weeks, but having to start up again tomorrow. Given that I am not going to have the time to devote to this that I have over the past week.

    It has been enjoyable and informative. I think though that for now we are going to have to agree to disagree.

    Let me just say though, since this is something I do know in rather more depth and can respond without any research, that the majority of the world’s Christians most assuredly did consider the pogroms against the Jews and many of the other items I mentioned as an appropriate means to get others to convert. Many of these pogroms were started by the people themselves and carried out rather enthusastically. Reading the writings of the times is quite interesting.

    A good book that I just finished that touches on that is The Great Mortality by John Kelly.

    Reply
    • Adam, on November 12th, 2009 at 12:39 pm Said:

      Really cool chatting with you, Befuddled.

      I appreciate that you are a student of history, it seems you have some education in that field. The truth is that the Christians who advocated violence as a means of converting people didn’t draw inspiration from Christ. Therefore violence cannot be done on behalf of Christ or Christianity. It is done on behalf of men’s fears, greed, pettiness etc, but it is not possible for the life of Christ to be logically linked with the commission of violence on His behalf.

      Reply
  29. befuddled2, on November 12th, 2009 at 1:15 am Said:

    Quick response to Dan.

    The two statements are not contradictory. There is a full four days between the two posts, one being on 11/7 and the other on 11/11. Since I was on vacation I spent a considerable amount of time reaing the Qur’an and some of the history of Islam and its theology.

    I had some knowledge of Islam before coming across this blog although nowhere near as extensive as that of Christianity, Buddhism and some other religioins.

    The word “yet” means that I have some preliminary ideas based on my current knowledge of Islam and the Qur’an, but that I was going to do further research. Which I did and posted on 11/11.

    Reply
    • Adam, on November 12th, 2009 at 12:42 pm Said:

      I read an article once…wow, a long time ago, about how the Quran doesn’t make grammatical sense even in classical Arabic. The article argued that it made more grammatical sense if read in Syro-Aramaic, which is generally accepted as the lingua franca of the peninsula in Mohammed’s day. I forget the author or title of it…and it’s banned in my country anyways (anything on the web regarding Islam is banned, regardless of it’s slant. Every page except Wikipedia. Sorry, I can’t find it.)

      Maybe you could find it. It was a few years ago I read it.

      Reply
    • Dan, on November 12th, 2009 at 4:36 pm Said:

      The response made by befuddled is to my comment inserted as a “reply” earlier in this string.

      Befuddled

      TO make the following statement is understandable and likely true fore for most.

      “I do not know enough about Islam and the Qur’an to effectively counter what you have said yet .” (2nd comment 11/7)

      But to then say:

      “On my part I find it hard to take someone seriously who does not do his own research. I spent a considerable amount of time researching the Qur’an and Islam and the history of both.”

      later in the same string seems to me a little bit contradictory.

      Furthermore: the final word “yet” in your first statement suggest that you already know what Neil has said is wrong but have not done the research to prove it. That is hardly an open minded approach to research. Why do the research at all?

      Reply
  30. befuddled2, on November 12th, 2009 at 8:48 pm Said:

    Adam, here is the Wikipedia entry on it. Hope it helps out. And may I ask what country you are living in? Bann

    ing anything Islamic is interesting, so I assume it is not a Middle Eastern country.

    The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran

    Author Christoph Luxenberg
    Original title Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran
    Country Germany
    Language English
    Subject(s) Qur’anic studies
    Genre(s) Non-fiction
    Publisher Hans Schiler Publishers
    Publication date 1 May 2007
    Media type Print (Hardcover)
    Pages 352
    ISBN 3-89930-088-2
    OCLC Number 124038162
    Dewey Decimal 297.1/22 22
    LC Classification PJ6696 .L8913 2007
    The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran English Edition of 2007 (Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (2000) is a book by Christoph Luxenberg.

    This book is considered a controversial work, triggering a debate about the history, linguistic origins and correct interpretation of the Qur’an. It has received much coverage in the mainstream media.[1]

    The book argues that the Koran at its inception was drawn from Christian Syro-Aramaic texts, in order to evangelize the Arabs in the early 8th century.[2]

    Contents [hide]
    1 Summary
    2 Thesis
    3 His proposed methodology
    4 Author’s arguments
    5 Academic reviews
    6 Notes
    7 External links
    7.1 Academic press
    7.2 Popular press

    [edit] Summary
    Richard Kroes summarises the argument of the book as follows:

    According to Luxenberg, the Qur’an was not written in classical Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders’ language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Qur’an was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Qur’anic text. That idea is in serious disagreement with the views of both traditional Muslims and western scholars of Islam.[3]

    [edit] Thesis
    The work advances the thesis that critical sections of the Qu’ran have been misread by generations of readers and Muslim and Western scholars, who consider classical Arabic as the language of the Qur’an. Luxenberg’s analysis suggests that the prevalent Syro-Aramic language up to the 7th century formed a stronger etymological basis for its meaning.[4][5]

    A notable trait of early written Arabic was that it lacked vowel signs and diacritic points which would later distinguish e.g. B, T, N, Y ب ت ن ي (Defective script), and thus was prone to misinterpretation. The diacritical points were added around the turn of the eighth century on orders of Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef, governor of Iraq (694-714).

    Luxenberg remarks that the Qur’an contains much ambiguous and even inexplicable language. He asserts that even Muslim scholars find some passages difficult to parse and have written reams of Quranic commentary attempting to explain these passages. However, the assumption behind their endeavours has always been, according to him, that any difficult passage is true, meaningful, and pure Arabic, and that it can be deciphered with the tools of traditional Muslim scholarship. Luxenberg accuses Western academic scholars of the Qur’an of taking a timid and imitative approach, relying too heavily on the biased work of Muslim scholars.

    The book’s thesis is that the Qur’an was not originally written exclusively in Arabic but in a mixture with Syriac, the dominant spoken and written language in the Arabian peninsula through the 8th century.

    “ What is meant by Syro-Aramaic (actually Syriac) is the branch of Aramaic in the Near East originally spoken in Edessa and the surrounding area in Northwest Mesopotamia and predominant as a written language from Christianization to the origin of the Koran. For more than a millennium Aramaic was the lingua franca in the entire Middle Eastern region before being gradually displaced by Arabic beginning in the 7th century.[6] ”

    Luxenberg argues that scholars must start afresh, ignore the old Islamic commentaries, and use only the latest in linguistic and historical methods. Hence, if a particular Quranic word or phrase seems meaningless in Arabic, or can be given meaning only by tortured conjectures, it makes sense – he argues – to look to the Aramaic and Syriac languages as well as Arabic.

    Luxenberg also argues that the Qur’an is based on earlier texts, namely Syriac lectionaries used in the Christian churches of Syria, and that it was the work of several generations who adapted these texts into the Qur’an we know today.

    [edit] His proposed methodology
    Check whether a plausible, overlooked explanation can be found in Al-Tabari’s commentary.
    Check if there is a plausible explanation in the Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Mandhur, the most extensive Arabic dictionary (this dictionary antedates Tabari, so might contain new material).
    Check if the Arabic expression has a homonymous root in Syriac or Aramaic with a different meaning that fits the context.
    Judge whether or not the meaning of the Syriac/Aramaic root word might make better sense of the passage.
    Check to see if there is a Syriac word which would make sense of the passage.
    Experiment with different placements of the diacritics (which indicate vowels, etc.) later added to the earliest text, the rasm. Perhaps there is a version of the rasm that will give an Arabic word that makes sense of the passage.
    If there is no Arabic word that works, repeat the experiment and look for Syriac words.
    Translate the Arabic phrase into Syriac and check the Syrian literature for a phrase that might have been translated literally into Arabic; the original meaning in Syriac may make more sense than the resulting Arabic phrase (such translated phrases are called morphological calques).
    Check to see if there is a corresponding phrase in the old Syrian literature, which may be an analog of an Arabic phrase now lost.
    Check to see if it is a correct Arabic expression written in Arabic script, but in Syriac orthography.[7]
    “Plausibility”, “judging” and “making sense” of single word involves looking at occurrences of the same word in more obvious Koranic passages, and looking at Aramaic apocryphal and liturgical texts, which were carried over almost verbatim into the Koran.

    A review by Walid Saleh[8] attests that Luxenberg does not follow his proposed rules.[9]

    [edit] Author’s arguments
    According to Luxenberg the word “al-qur’an” is derived from the Aramaic word “qeryan-a” meaning ‘lectionary’ ­ a book of liturgical readings. This book was a Syro-Aramaic lectionary, with hymns and Biblical extracts, created for use in Christian services. This Arabic lectionary is a trace of the pre-Islamic, Christian past of certain Arab communities, who were amongst the first Christians. It was not meant to start a new religion, but a legacy of an older one.[10] It is accepted by scholars and orientalists internationally that the word “qur’an” (without the article l-) is derived from the Arabic root word “qara’a”, which means reading. Luxenbergs Aramaic “qeryan” (without the article -a) is also derived from the same, shared Semitic root Q-R-’ “reading”, as is obvious from the translation “lectionary”, “a text for reading”.
    The word huri, universally interpreted by scholars as white-eyed virgins (who will serve the faithful in Paradise; Qur’an 44:54, 52:20, 55:72, 56:22) means, according to Luxenberg, white grapes. He says that many Christian descriptions of Paradise describe it as abounding in pure white grapes. This sparked much joking in the Western press; suicide bombers would be expecting beautiful women and getting grapes.[11].
    The Quranic passage in Sura 24 (al-núr, “The Light”), verse 31, reads in Arabic “wa-l-yaDribna bi-KHumuri-hinna ɛalâ juyûbi-hinna”, and is traditionally translated as saying that women “should draw their veils over their bosoms” (Yusufali interpretation).[1] It has been interpreted as command for women to cover themselves, and is used in support of hijab. In Luxenberg’s Syro-Aramaic reading, the verse instead commands women to “snap their belts around their waists.” Luxenberg argues that this is a much more plausible reading than the Arabic one. The belt was a sign of chastity in the Christian world. Also, Jesus puts on an apron before he washes the disciples feet at the last supper.[12]
    The passage in Sura 33 that has usually been translated as “seal of the prophets” means, according to Luxenberg, “witness”. By this reading, Muhammad is not the last of the prophets, but only a witness to those prophets who came before him.
    The Qur’an was composed in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language according to Luxenberg. He claims that the borrowings show the characteristics of Eastern Aramaic rather than Western Aramaic, which rules the traders’ language of Mecca (as such a postulated phenomenon that has yet to be proven it was used in Mecca) out as a candidate for having been the source.
    The interpretative mistakes that were made by the first commentators and Western scholars – according to Luxenberg – necessitate the assumption that there must have been a gap in the oral transmission of the Qur’an.
    [edit] Academic reviews
    The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2009)

    Luxenberg’s argument that the Qur’an has Syro-Aramaic origins has attracted debates in the academic community and popular media. Scholarly reviews have been critical of his book.[7][13][14][15]

    The Qur’an is “the translation of a Syriac text,” is how Angelika Neuwirth, a German scholar of Islam, describes Luxenberg’s thesis – “The general thesis underlying his entire book thus is that the Qur’an is a corpus of translations and paraphrases of original Syriac texts recited in church services as elements of a lectionary.” She considers it as “an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations.” Neuwirth points out that Luxenberg doesn’t consider the previous work in Qu’ran studies, but “limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modem linguistics.”[14]

    Richard Kroes describes him as “unaware of much of the other literature on the subject” and that “quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda.”[3] François de Blois, in the Journal of Qur’anic Studies, points to grammatical mistakes in Luxenberg’s book:[3] “His grasp of Syriac is limited to knowledge of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East.”[3][13] He descrbies his book as “not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism.”[13]

    Dr Walid Saleh describes Luxemberg’s method as “so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight.”[7] He adds that according to Luxenberg, for the last two hundred years, Western scholars “have totally misread the Qur’ān”; that no one can understand the Qur’an: “Only he can fret out for us the Syrian skeleton of this text.”[7] Summing up his assessment of Luxenberg’s method, he states:

    The first fundamental premise of his approach, that the Qur’ān is a Syriac text, is the easiest to refute on linguistic evidence. Nothing in the Qur’ān is Syriac, even the Syriac borrowed terms are Arabic, in so far as they now Arabized and used inside an Arabic linguistic medium. Luxenberg is pushing the etymological fallacy to its natural conclusion. The Qur’ān not only is borrowing words according to Luxenberg, it is speaking a gibberish language.[7]

    Patricia Crone, professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, refers to Luxenberg’s work as “open to so many scholarly objections” and “notably amateurism”.[16]

    [edit] Notes
    ^ The Koran As Philological Quarry A Conversation with Christoph Luxenberg
    ^ The Virgins and the Grapes: the Christian Origins of the Koran
    ^ a b c d Richard Kroes. “Missionary, dilettante or visionary?”. Livius – Articles on Ancient History. http://www.livius.org/opinion/Luxenberg.htm.
    ^ The New York Times Radical New Views of Islam and the Origins of the Koran
    ^ The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Qur’an, 2007, English Edition Chapter 18: “Contrary to the earlier assumption of a dialect of Arabic spoken in Mecca, the present study has shown that, insofar as the Arabic tradition has identified the language of the Koran with that of the Quraysh, the inhabitants of Mecca, this language must instead have been an Aramaic-Arabic hybrid language. It is not just the findings of this study that have led to this insight. Namely, in the framework of this study an examination of a series of hadith (sayings of the Prophet) has identified Aramaisms that had either been misinterpreted or were inexplicable from the point of view of Arabic. This would lead one to assume that Mecca was originally an Aramaic settlement. Confirmation of this would come from the name Mecca (Macca) itself, which one has not been able to explain etymologically on the basis of Arabic. But if we take the Syro-Aramaic root Km (ma, actually makk) (lower, to be low) as a basis, we get the adjective akm (mäkkä) (masc.), atkm (mäkk1ä) (fem.), with the meaning of “(the) lower (one).”
    ^ The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Qur’an 2007 English edition, Foreword
    ^ a b c d e * Review by Prof. Walid Saleh (Department and Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto) pp 34-5
    ^ Review by Prof. Walid Saleh (Department and Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto) p. 47
    ^ In his critique of Luxenberg, Professor Walid Saleh indicates that “The etymology of a word is a poor indication of what it means in a new context.” He refers to Paul V. Mankowski’s Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lakes: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 1-13 and quotes M O’Conor’s article “The Arabic Loanwords in Nabatean Aramaic” JNES 45 (1986), 215: “[T]he fundamental difficulty of all intra-Semitic language study: there is a common stratus of vocabulary and grammatical structure which makes it impossible to assign many words and formants to a particular language. p. 55
    ^ Jim Quilty (2003-07-13). “Giving the Koran a history”. Daily Star. lebanonwire.com. Archived from the original on 2007-05-20. http://web.archive.org/web/20070520172118/http://www.lebanonwire.com/0307/03071213DS.asp. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
    ^ “Virgins? What virgins?”. The Guardian. 2002-01-12. http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,,631332,00.html.
    ^ The Virgins and the Grapes: the Christian Origins of the Koran
    ^ a b c Review by François de Blois (Department of Iranian Studies, University of Hamburg)
    ^ a b Neuwirth, A. 2003: ‘Qur’an and History – A Disputed Relationship. Some Reflections on Qur’anic History and History in the Qur’an’ in: Journal of Qur’anic Studies, Vol. V, Issue 1, pp. 1-18.
    ^ Michael Marx (2004-05-22). “What is the Koran?”. inamo 37/2004. http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-115/_p-1/i.html?PHPSESSID=ed3c3cf2734af1ef53d76789b3001354.
    ^ Crone, Patricia. “What do we actually know about Mohammed?”. http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp. Retrieved 2009-03-27.
    [edit] External links
    [edit] Academic press
    Review by François de Blois (Department of Iranian Studies, University of Hamburg)
    Review by Richard Kroes (Archeologist, writer of “Islam en Integratie”, Rotterdam)
    Review by Angelika Neuwirth (Arabist Department, Free University of Berlin)
    Review by Robert R. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn (Syriac Institute, Department of Theology, University of St. Thomas)
    Review by Prof. Walid Saleh (Department and Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto)
    Hoyland, Robert: New Documentary Texts and the Early Islamic State, in: BSOAS: vol 9, part 3, 2006
    Corriente, F.: On a prosposal for a ‘Syro-Aramaic’ reading of the Qur’an, in: Collectanea Christiana Orientalia No.1.
    [edit] Popular press
    Goethe Institute: The Koran As Philological Quarry A Conversation with Christoph Luxenberg
    Islamic-Awareness, From Alphonse Mingana To Christoph Luxenberg: Arabic Script & The Alleged Syriac Origins Of The Qur’an
    Lebanon Wire: Giving the Koran a history: Holy Book under scrutiny
    Newsweek: Challenging the Koran
    New York Times: Scholars Scrutinize the Koran’s Origin
    Reuters: Low profile for German Koran challenger
    Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran”

    Reply
  31. befuddled2, on November 12th, 2009 at 8:56 pm Said:

    Adam, you might find this link of interest too, if you have access to it.

    This is a scholarly review of the work.

    http://www.christoph-heger.de/Solomon_I_Sara_rev_Christoph-Luxenberg_Theological_Studies_2008-03-01.pdf

    This is the atual first 20 or so pages.

    http://www.nd.edu/~reynolds/theo30217/readings/luxextracts.pdf

    Hopefully these will be helpful.

    Reply
    • Adam, on November 13th, 2009 at 1:02 am Said:

      Thanks Befuddled. That was the article I read off the web a few years ago.

      Dan and Befuddled, I live in Abu Dhabi, the capital city of the United Arab Emirates. We are bordered by Saudi Arabia and Oman, across the Gulf is Iran. I’ve been here for two years now. Today I am going camping into the Liwa desert, the largest sand desert in the world (it goes into the Empty Quarter in Saudi).

      With regards to banning and censoring things in an Islamic country, most of the Islamic countries have an officially unofficial banned book list. I have seen this banned materials list as my best friend here is a reporter with The National, the regions best English language newspaper, and as an Egyptian/Canadian national he is fluent in written and spoken Arabic and has managed to secure a hardcopy of the list through his contacts with the Ministry of Interior. He was temporarily deported last week due to his reporting on Dubai’s lax passport control system, where several Chinese men with fake Korean passports flew from China through Dubai to Istanbul where they were caught and sent back to Dubai. My friend reported this seemingly innocuous story and ended up facing the judge on ’state security issues’. In reality the Gov’t didn’t want bad press preceding the F1 race hosted here, and faced with the option of jailing a journalist and receiving even more bad press they just sent him to Nepal for 10 days and informed him his job would not be waiting for him upon his return.

      There most definitely is a banlist on ideas critical to Islam here.

      Reply

Leave a Reply