<p>“Well, most may not commit such activities like the terrorists do, but most certainly support - or <em>at least</em> sympathize with - them.”</p>
<p>Where are you getting that information from? Sympathize with them? I don’t think so. Most Muslims don’t sympathize with the terrorists. All over the world, Muslims try to show support for victims of these terrorist activities, show opposition to the few disgusting idiots who give their religion a bad name. You will find groups all over the world of Muslims trying to show their solidarity against terrorism, to show the majority of them don’t agree with horrible violence like that. After September 11, Muslims all over the US, and the world, held marches and rallies condemning the attacks. After the recent attacks in Bombay, Indian Muslims held marches for peace. I’m not sure why you seem to think they would support the terrorists, but you really need to learn a little more about Islam and Muslims before coming to generalizations like that.</p>
<p>There are instances in which chronologically later govern over previous ones (in issues not related to war) because a ruling had been further developed, but this is not so in this instance. Forced conversion is prohibited, period. This is because in Islam, religion is something one must believe in within his or her heart. Anybody can claim to be a Muslim (as can be seen with the sick characters that employ terror throughout the world), but they could easily be a hypocrite. In other words, it is what one believes and does, not what one says, that counts.</p>
<p>“jihad is struggle with yourself INSIDE of your mind in FIRST place. I would recommend learning arabic and reading Qur’an.”</p>
<p>There are two types of jihad. one is the inner struggle for salvation, the other is roughly translated to Holy War, Jihad fi sabil Allah. Clearly if you learned arabic and knew about Muslim intellectual thought that wouldn’t be news to you. =]</p>
<p>“Well, most may not commit such activities like the terrorists do, but most certainly support - or <em>at least</em> sympathize with - them.”</p>
<p>I think it was a Gallup poll or something I’ll look it up if anybody calls me out on BS because it’s written in a notebook somewhere: 92% of Muslims are against the extremists. Although that still leaves 8% of 1 billion, the majority of them are NOT passive supporters.</p>
<p>@Logic Warrior
Islam does not preach terror, per se. At the same time, it is NOT a pacifist religion. At the time of Islam’s conception, there was constant warfare. You could get killed at any time. Islam created a system for war, such as banning it during certain months (Ramadan and three or four others) to create some sort of civility. At the same time, it provided for jihad to ensure that Muslims could practice their religion freely.</p>
<p>I urge you to show me in a dynamic understanding of the Qur’an how it preaches terror. (without taking quotes from the Qur’an that Osama ibn Laden uses in his writings as well as Sayyid Qutb)</p>
<p>(without taking quotes from the Qur’an that Osama ibn Laden uses in his writings as well as Sayyid Qutb)</p>
<p>Why are they invalid? </p>
<p>To sum up my opinions in this thread, Islam is more warlike than Christianity because Muhammed was a warmonger and Jesus was a pacifist, but this doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists or that all Christians are peaceful.</p>
<p>If Muslim states reformed and modernized, and stopped obssesing over religion and passing injust laws against non-Muslims I GUARANTEE you that you’d see a Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. leader in a Muslim majority nation.</p>
<p>You mean just how in the free land of majority Christian America we’ve seen Jewish, Hindu and Muslim presidents?
Banning discrimination based on religion doesn’t guarantee anything. A minority is still a minority and there’d still be de facto discrimination. Hell, it was a big deal when Kennedy became president simply because he was Catholic. If America found the idea of simply a different branch of Christianity taking office taboo, God knows what the reaction would be like if a non-Christian became president and I’m sure the same principle would apply to a Muslim-majority nation too.</p>
<p>Sorry for coming back late to the ongoing discussion. To CocaCola- post 82- I understand your point about a later interpretation superceding a prior one. My question was about resolving ambiguity or contradiction in the Koran itself, not in hierarchy of interpretation. How does one avoid the conclusion that the Koran advocates violence toward non believers who do not convert if the canon of interpretation of the Koran itself is that the declarations later in time (and first appearing in text…which are the verses about violence, the so called “sword” verses) supercede the declarations earlier in time (and appearing later in text) about tolerating non believers? Sorry if I’m not “getting it”, but further clarification would be appreciated.</p>
<p>Ok, I just want to make it clear that just like not all Muslims are terrorists, not all evangelical Christians are out to shove our religion down the throats of the rest of the world. The vast majority of us are peaceful everyday people just trying to live our lives under a constant barrage of criticism.</p>
<p>Islam preaches terror in the same way that Christianity preaches the throwing of Jews into the lake of fire. Is it in their holy books? Yeah. But it’s not the main point of the religion.</p>
<p>"Why are they invalid? "
They are invalid because they’re taken out of context. The Sunnah is reached through more ways than just the Qur’an. Islamic scholars, like Sherman Jackson, recognize this and blast Sayyid Qutb (who hypocritically preached for having a dynamic understanding of Islam) and others for taking quotes from the Qur’an out of context.
The Qur’an contradicts itself enough (why there’s a method for abrogation) that one quote taken out of context can’t change an entire religion.
Hope that clarifies why.</p>
<p>I think I know what you are saying. What I am trying to tell you is that this rule of interpretation you mention is not necessarily correct.</p>
<p>In short, you ask “How can…if the canon of interpretation of the Koran itself is that the declarations later in time supercede the declarations earlier in time”. The “if” statement is false, and thus the question itself needs no answer.</p>