Holy books

[The Factory]

The Satanic Bible gets my vote, although I'm not a huge fan of the book of Belial and Leviathan.

[Neoteny]

WHat I'm trying to show is that, at least in the course of my research, I've found very little to indicate that the commandments in the Koran were ever taken at face value other than as propoganda in times of war. The Koran is certainly taken as the direct word of God, but the extent to which it is enacted is another matter. Muslims DID take Jews or Christians as friends. They worked and fought alongside one another, employed one another, were commanded by and commanded one another. One of the reasons the crusader states were able to even exist was the fact that the Muslim peasants simply accepted a change of master. Saladin, often helf up as the great promotor of Jihad and the uniter of Islam, was more than willing to consider a diplomatic compromise during the third crusade where certain areas could cme under joint and peaceful rule. There was nothing inherent in the interpetation of their religion current at the time which said they had to wipe every Jew and Christian off the face of the planet, just as the Christins didn't obey the letter of the law regarding papal justification to wage war on the Muslims. The Jews were no more repressed under Islamic rule in the Middle Ages than any minority group under any ruling power in a similar situation. Indeed, they probably enjoyed more freedom than the Muslim peasantry.

I am arguing this from my own knowledge, my own research and through my own academic enquirey... It is, indeed, my job...

I don't know enough history from direct sources to contradict you as far as war propaganda goes. But the fact that it isn't always taken seriously doesn't mean that it hasn't been. The alarming trend towards "fundamentalism" is apparent both Christianity and Islam (I haven't noticed it in Judaism, but I am less informed about that as a whole) and if it's happening now, there is no reason to assume that it hasn't happened during other time periods.

Anyhow, making a group of people pay a tax that other groups don't is a form of discrimination. The Pact of Umar, despite any debate of it's historicity (it was imposed at some point and if I remember correctly was used as a foundation for later official forms of dhimmi status) gives a pretty good idea of the status of dhimmis.

The idea of a "Golden Age" (particularly in Spain) of tolerance between Muslims and other religions is pretty widely spread, but there are references that it is not necessarilly true. I'll only give one reference because reference battles are never fun or productive...

The following is Richard Fletcher in Moorish Spain:

"The witness of those who lived through the horrors of the Berber conquest, of the Andalusian fitnah in the early eleventh century, of the Almoravid invasion- to mention only a few disruptive episodes- must give it [i.e., the roseate view of Muslim Spain] the lie. The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was of tranquility...Tolerance? Ask the Jews of Granada who were massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were deported by the Almoravids to Morocco in 1126 (like the Moriscos five centuries later)."

According to wikipedia (an awesome source, I know), the Golden Age was between the eighth and thirteenth centuries. I won't go on, but the dates cited imply otherwise. I give these examples to show that, even if they were no more oppressed than any other people, they were still oppressed, and that oppression was based on their religion. I'm sorry to have opened a can of worms by saying that Muslims tend not to get along with Jews, but history gives us evidence that it is so. The fact that history shows Jews not getting along with Muslims, Muslims not getting along with Christians, Christians not getting along with Native Americans, me not getting along with my sister, or even cases of Muslims getting along with Jews does not make my statement any less true (nor does it justify any of it, intolerance = bad), particularly if the most touted example of tolerance between the two cultures was anything but.

[Guiscard]

The fact that history shows Jews not getting along with Muslims, Muslims not getting along with Christians, Christians not getting along with Native Americans, me not getting along with my sister, or even cases of Muslims getting along with Jews does not make my statement any less true (nor does it justify any of it, intolerance = bad), particularly if the most touted example of tolerance between the two cultures was anything but.

This is the key point.

The Fletcher quote is a good one. I was lucky enough to meet him and hear a seminar paper as an undergraduate before he died. He was, as you probably know, a historian of Medieval Spain and, most specifically, he focused on the clashes between Islam and Christianity. Again, he has his critics. Every historian of merit does. I acknowledged the pogroms in Spain in my very first post as an example of the limits of my generalisation.

What I am arguing, however, is that anti-semitism is not an inherent part if the Islamic religion. Repression of minorities is an inherent part of humanity. To mark a Muslim out as any different to, as you say, a Native American is wrong. The whole point of the argument to begin with was that the root of current Islamic reactions to Judaism stem not from centuries of religious strife and friction but from the created of the Israeli state. You implied the clash between Islam and Judaism had deep roots, but I'm arguing it really doesn't.

[khellendros]

Your forgetting Quotations from Chariman Mao Zedong Although I guess the Communist manifesto is pretty close...

[RobinJ]

Must... resist... lord of....the rings.

I canna do it, captain!

Well I'm still a bit more Christian than that but I was also tempted. I must now punish myself for my sin...

[Neoteny]

The fact that history shows Jews not getting along with Muslims, Muslims not getting along with Christians, Christians not getting along with Native Americans, me not getting along with my sister, or even cases of Muslims getting along with Jews does not make my statement any less true (nor does it justify any of it, intolerance = bad), particularly if the most touted example of tolerance between the two cultures was anything but.

This is the key point.

The Fletcher quote is a good one. I was lucky enough to meet him and hear a seminar paper as an undergraduate before he died. He was, as you probably know, a historian of Medieval Spain and, most specifically, he focused on the clashes between Islam and Christianity. Again, he has his critics. Every historian of merit does. I acknowledged the pogroms in Spain in my very first post as an example of the limits of my generalisation.

What I am arguing, however, is that anti-semitism is not an inherent part if the Islamic religion. Repression of minorities is an inherent part of humanity. To mark a Muslim out as any different to, as you say, a Native American is wrong. The whole point of the argument to begin with was that the root of current Islamic reactions to Judaism stem not from centuries of religious strife and friction but from the created of the Israeli state. You implied the clash between Islam and Judaism had deep roots, but I'm arguing it really doesn't.

Oops, you're right, I did miss your mention of the pogroms and I suppose I might have gotten a little off topic there, but not far. My bad. And I'm a little jealous that you got to correspond with Fletcher. :] Additionally, I agree that all intellectual participants have their critics. It's what makes the whole reference thing a pain in the ass. Damn our rigorous peer review processes...

I will however note some things you said (that's a little easier):

"What I'm trying to show is that, at least in the course of my research, I've found very little to indicate that the commandments in the Koran were ever taken at face value other than as propoganda in times of war."

You don't seem to be refuting the commandments in the Qur'an. And then you say:

"What I am arguing, however, is that anti-semitism is not an inherent part if the Islamic religion."

So, I will restate my point. Here is sura 9.29 from three different translations taken from the Project Gutenburg website (easily one of the best, if not the best, websites on the internet):

"Y: = Qur'an Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

P: = Qur'an Translation by Marmaduke Pickthall

S: = Qur'an Translation by Mohammad Habib Shakir"

"009.029
Y: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of
the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued.

P: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as
believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah
hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth,
until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

S: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor
do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor
follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the
Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they
are in a state of subjection."

This is a command of subjugation, if not violence, toward non-Muslims. Regardless of the expression of this subjugation (which I think is clear), you don't get much more inherent in a religion than being in the religion's holy book.

[Guiscard]

The fact that history shows Jews not getting along with Muslims, Muslims not getting along with Christians, Christians not getting along with Native Americans, me not getting along with my sister, or even cases of Muslims getting along with Jews does not make my statement any less true (nor does it justify any of it, intolerance = bad), particularly if the most touted example of tolerance between the two cultures was anything but.

This is the key point.

The Fletcher quote is a good one. I was lucky enough to meet him and hear a seminar paper as an undergraduate before he died. He was, as you probably know, a historian of Medieval Spain and, most specifically, he focused on the clashes between Islam and Christianity. Again, he has his critics. Every historian of merit does. I acknowledged the pogroms in Spain in my very first post as an example of the limits of my generalisation.

What I am arguing, however, is that anti-semitism is not an inherent part if the Islamic religion. Repression of minorities is an inherent part of humanity. To mark a Muslim out as any different to, as you say, a Native American is wrong. The whole point of the argument to begin with was that the root of current Islamic reactions to Judaism stem not from centuries of religious strife and friction but from the created of the Israeli state. You implied the clash between Islam and Judaism had deep roots, but I'm arguing it really doesn't.

Oops, you're right, I did miss your mention of the pogroms and I suppose I might have gotten a little off topic there, but not far. My bad. And I'm a little jealous that you got to correspond with Fletcher. :] Additionally, I agree that all intellectual participants have their critics. It's what makes the whole reference thing a pain in the ass. Damn our rigorous peer review processes...

I will however note some things you said (that's a little easier):

"What I'm trying to show is that, at least in the course of my research, I've found very little to indicate that the commandments in the Koran were ever taken at face value other than as propoganda in times of war."

You don't seem to be refuting the commandments in the Qur'an. And then you say:

"What I am arguing, however, is that anti-semitism is not an inherent part if the Islamic religion."

So, I will restate my point. Here is sura 9.29 from three different translations taken from the Project Gutenburg website (easily one of the best, if not the best, websites on the internet):

"Y: = Qur'an Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

P: = Qur'an Translation by Marmaduke Pickthall

S: = Qur'an Translation by Mohammad Habib Shakir"

"009.029
Y: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of
the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued.

P: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as
believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah
hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth,
until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

S: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor
do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor
follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the
Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they
are in a state of subjection."

This is a command of subjugation, if not violence, toward non-Muslims. Regardless of the expression of this subjugation (which I think is clear), you don't get much more inherent in a religion than being in the religion's holy book.

And, as I both stated and proved in a previous post, even such strict commandments (just as with the Bible) were never taken as the letter of the law for everday life. You can quote the Koran until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that the subjugation of Jews by Muslims was no different to any other minority group anywhere in the world at the time. The Bible tells us to 'love thy neighbor' as a primary commandment, but that doesn't mean that the Christians obeyed the letter of the law in that regard either. Being in the holy book bears no specific relation to actual real-world practice. Not in Islam, not in Judaism and not in Christianity. As I've said, living by the letter of the Koran there was no way Saladin could ever consider a truce of shared power in the Levant. I have this argument time and time again. 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah' is perfectly justified in times of war, but in times of peace it was, quite obviously ignored. I'm talking about 'inherent' in practice and belief. Countless Islamic accounts contradict the 'belief' that it was a Muslims's duty to wipe out the unbeliever.

[Neoteny]

And, as I both stated and proved in a previous post, even such strict commandments (just as with the Bible) were never taken as the letter of the law for everday life. You can quote the Koran until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that the subjugation of Jews by Muslims was no different to any other minority group anywhere in the world at the time. The Bible tells us to 'love thy neighbor' as a primary commandment, but that doesn't mean that the Christians obeyed the letter of the law in that regard either. Being in the holy book bears no specific relation to actual real-world practice. Not in Islam, not in Judaism and not in Christianity. As I've said, living by the letter of the Koran there was no way Saladin could ever consider a truce of shared power in the Levant. I have this argument time and time again. 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah' is perfectly justified in times of war, but in times of peace it was, quite obviously ignored. I'm talking about 'inherent' in practice and belief. Countless Islamic accounts contradict the 'belief' that it was a Muslims's duty to wipe out the unbeliever.

Ack! Yes, religious people are hypocrites, I know. Even if they don't practice what they preach, they are still preaching it. It is part of their religion whether they follow it or not. And their religion does not prohibit the anti-semitism, which, even if it did, does not guarantee subjugation would not occur. You are right, human nature. Sure they did it in war; sure the Qur'an encourages war; sure they could have gone to war for economic or political reasons. Muslims hold a religion that encourages anti-semitic subjugation. And if any Muslims hold their book to be true the way Christians I've met here in Georgia do, then they sincerely believe in sura 2.29. The subjugation may be motivated by reasons other than religion, but the religion that they hold endorses and encourages said subjugation.

[mr. incrediball]

And the Origin of Species isn't a holy book.

it's better than the bible

[Guiscard]

And if any Muslims hold their book to be true the way Christians I've met here in Georgia do, then they sincerely believe in sura 2.29. The subjugation may be motivated by reasons other than religion, but the religion that they hold endorses and encourages said subjugation.

Nope. As I've repeatedly argued, and will stop doing now because we're going around in circles...

[Neoteny]

And if any Muslims hold their book to be true the way Christians I've met here in Georgia do, then they sincerely believe in sura 2.29. The subjugation may be motivated by reasons other than religion, but the religion that they hold endorses and encourages said subjugation.

Nope. As I've repeatedly argued, and will stop doing now because we're going around in circles...

::throws up hands::

You frustrate me.

[mybike_yourface]

see, this is why daoism is so nice. everything is up for question and there's no holy books.

Same goes for atheism.

yeah, minus the spirituality and meaning in life.

[mybike_yourface]

Why isn't my holy book up there?

lovely slayer banner!