Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Crusades versus Jihad
February 7, 2003 | Me

Posted on 02/07/2003 8:34:07 PM PST by Voice in your head

I was doing some reading at the online Catholic Encyclopedia. It is an extremely well written, and user-friendly source of information. I found an interesting account of the Crusades and was struck by how similar the Catholic Encyclopedia’s interpretation of the Crusades is to the Islamic interpretation of Jihad.

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Crusades as, “… expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.”

Compare this with the definition of jihad given by Imam Tammam Adi Ph.D of the Islamic Cultural Center:
“Jihad is the struggle to control one's lower instincts. Jihad also means to use a fair war to give a nation freedom of religion if all other means fail. Islam's main proclamation is "No compulsion in religion" Koran 2:255. The Afghani Mujahideen (those who do jihad) fought against the atheist Russians to keep their freedom of religion. Unfortunately, chaos ensued.” - quoted from here

In common, modern language, the words “Crusade” and jihad, according to their respective proponents, have been misused.

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes:
"Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication… But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.”

Imam Tammam Adi writes of jihad that it is “[o]ften mistranslated ‘holy war,’ especially against the West, the more accurate Arabic meaning is 'struggle'."

As I continued to read through the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, I also could not help but notice a familiar pattern emerging, regarding the evolution of the religion and its culture. This was alluded to, in one of the opening paragraphs of the Catholic encyclopedia article, which wrote that, “[t]he idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc.”

Much like the Arab cultures of today are often ruled by tyrannies that claim the divine right of Islam for justification of their powers – their powers being derived from the enforcement of “Islamic law” – the Christian cultures of the 11th through 16th centuries, when the crusades occurred, were “peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes.” Much like a Crusader was “considered a soldier of the Church,” the modern mujahideen and terrorists consider themselves to be waging a jihad. Depending upon who you listen to, one will receive a different opinion of which, if any, are legitimate. However, the Crusades and jihads seem to have one very important thing in common. The Crusades took place when the church had a large and somewhat authoritative role in the culture. That authoritative role is also present in the Arab world today - perhaps even more so. Arab nations tend to be ruled by "Islamic law." Like the perversion of government and religion that occured in England, due to their intermixing (rules of divorce, Anglican church, etc.) the Arab nations of today declare stoning and rape to be legitimate punishments for certain crimes and they justify this by declaring it to be "Islamic law."

As I read the articles mentioned above and as I wrote this, I began to ponder a few questions:

1. Were there self-proclaimed Christians, during the Crusades, who killed in a manner that the church did not approve of, but declared their actions to be part of a legitimate Crusade?

2. Were there religious leaders who used their positions of authority to encourage violence against those whom they arbitrarily viewed as “infidels”?

3. With questions 1 and 2 in mind, is history repeating itself? Is jihad, as Palestinians and Al-Qaeda wage it, a modern day perversion of the Islamic equivalent of a “Crusade”? Is the term jihad being exploited by an ignorant Arab culture and successfully being preached thanks to the democratization of communication?

4. People such as Imam Tammam Adi will assert that Islam is not a religion of violence. Many will explain that there is no such Islamic Law that advocates women to be covered head-to-toe, to be stoned or raped, or for various body parts to be cut off. That these are arbitrary interpretations of Islamic Law seems to be evident if one compares and contrasts different Arab countries. In some, women are covered head-to-toe, in others they are not. The same variation is present in punishments. Could it be that simple illiteracy and lack of education is the root of hatred in the Middle East and the source from which the literate spiritual leaders are able to exert their influence over the people?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: christians; crusades; islam; jihad
I realize that this is a touchy subject to some. Many posts mentioning Islam result in the expressions of desire for less than tasteful fates to befall certain Muslims, pseudo-Muslims, or even Muslims in general. Those desires may be well-founded, but I am hoping to receive legitimate input on this, such as responses containing fact and reason. If something is evil or wrong, it should be easy to argue against.

Disclaimer: I used "mujahideen" and "terrorists" in the same sentence, though I realize that this may sound redundant to some. But, to be objective, according to “moderate” Muslims, there are legitimate mujahideen. These include those who fought the Soviets/Russians in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and the Serbs in Bosnia. Terrorists, such as those who murdered Americans on 9/11/01, those who continue to murder Israelis, those who murder American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, and those who murder our diplomats throughout the Middle East and Africa do not fit the definition of jihad, given by Imam Tammam Adi, above.

1 posted on 02/07/2003 8:34:07 PM PST by Voice in your head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
You're either gonna get your a$$ kicked or get totally ignored for this one.
2 posted on 02/07/2003 8:45:34 PM PST by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
First of all, a 'crusade' is not a required act of Christian orthodoxy. Viewed over the 2000 years of Christianity, it is an aberration, not a constant.

I dont really find much fault in Christians wanting to rid the holy land of Muslim control, in that Muslims were forbidding Christians access to Jerusalem. That is what initiated the crusades.

As a Protestant, I really dont have ANY religious attachment to ANY shrine or piece of geography. I do have an emotional attachment to Israel, as that is where Jesus walked, but if I never go there, I wont be any the worse for it.

As I understand it, Jihad (personal or militant) IS a requirement of a devout Muslim. So comparing a Christian definition of crusade and a Muslim definition of Jihad, is not legitimate.

NO Christian feels the need to go on a crusade, period.

As a matter of fact, the founding doctrine of Protestantism, is that salvation comes not by ANY works that we do, but thru faith alone.

3 posted on 02/07/2003 8:46:30 PM PST by keithtoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo
I think that every point that you made in your reply was a legitimate one. However, I think there was a slight communication breakdown, on my part. You wrote that, "comparing a Christian definition of crusade and a Muslim definition of Jihad, is not legitimate." You supported this well. My aim, however, was not to compare the two, but rather to compare the similarities in which the two terms are exploited, if any, and explore the implications of any such exploitation.
4 posted on 02/07/2003 8:57:00 PM PST by Voice in your head (Nuke Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

An excellent post, BTW. Indeed it appears to me that these Islamist-terrorists are more Arab nationalists, much as the K.K.K., Christian Identity, or militia nutcases might try to misuse religion to bolster their evil agendas.

5 posted on 02/07/2003 9:05:30 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
1. Because the wars the Crusaders were fighting in were, at least initially, just wars. Additionally, the Crusades initial and well-defined goal and guidelines to it, that being the liberation of Jerusalem and freedom of the rather large Christian minorities in the Middle East. But in its current Wahhabi/Khomeinist incarnation, military jihad has no end, with no possibility of reconciliation between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. This cannot be said for the Crusades.

2. Almost certainly. However, all religions have had militant strains to them at some point or another. That is simply the way things go because, according to my own Catholic beliefs, humans are sinner. But no Catholic leader today is calling upon his followers to go out and slaughter infidels. The same cannot be said of contemporary Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, hence the current conflict.

3. No, because Crusade at least had a clearly defined goal. Al-Qaeda's jihad is not truly bent on removing US troops from Saudi Arabia but rather upon exporting Wahhabism onto the world stage as the premier ideology of Islam in order to launch a general uprising throughout the Muslim world in order to provoke a clash of civilizations. They believe that they can win such a confrontation, but I am somewhat skeptical in this regard.

4. No. While Islam, like any other faith, has its nasty and nice streaks, but the current sect in ascendance today throughout the Muslim world, Wahhabism, is uncompromisingly militant. I recommend "The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud" by Robert Lacey for a good (abeit uncompromisingly pro-Saudi) look at how the sect was founded. Everywhere it goes it has left violence, bloodshed, and oppression. Every Sunni terrorist group on the planet is Wahhabi, simply speaking. The War on Terror will end when sect either adapts its teachings to become less militant or suffers the fate of the Cathari.
6 posted on 02/07/2003 9:06:31 PM PST by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
”Because the wars the Crusaders were fighting in were, at least initially, just wars.”

Couldn’t the same be said of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan and the mujahideen who flocked to Bosnia, to fight alongside the Bosnian-Muslims?

”Additionally, the Crusades initial and well-defined goal and guidelines to it, that being the liberation of Jerusalem and freedom of the rather large Christian minorities in the Middle East.

Again, what about Afghanistan and Bosnia? In Afghanistan, the Muslims sought to oust the religious oppression that they feared from the Soviets. In Bosnia, mujahideen flocked to Bosnia because they believed that there was genocide being committed against the Muslims.

”But no Catholic leader today is calling upon his followers to go out and slaughter infidels. The same cannot be said of contemporary Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, hence the current conflict.”

I believe that this is largely the result of the principle that power corrupts. The Muslim clerics of the Arab nations have power, in that their words carry the weight of authority with them. The most devout Christian, in my opinion, is not going to go forth and kill, if his priest were to tell him to do so. The Christian is open to the idea that his priest is wise, but that all people are capable of sin.

”No, because Crusade at least had a clearly defined goal. Al-Qaeda's jihad is not truly bent on removing US troops from Saudi Arabia but rather upon exporting Wahhabism onto the world stage as the premier ideology of Islam…”

My question was not clear. In question 3, I wrote, “[w]ith questions 1 and 2 in mind, is history repeating itself?”. In referring to questions 1 and 2, I meant to say that if one accepts affirmative answers to those questions. If people falsely declared their actions to be part of a legitimate Crusade or if religious leaders misused their positions of authority during the Crusades, as mentioned in questions 1 and 2, then would that not be an indication that history is repeating itself? I believe that you are comparing the real Crusades with ”Al-Qaeda’s jihad” rather than with real jihad. I am trying to ask if the term “Crusade” was perverted in the same manner as the term jihad - asking if history is repeating itself, as it appears to me that it is.

”… the current sect in ascendance today throughout the Muslim world, Wahhabism, is uncompromisingly militant…Every Sunni terrorist group on the planet is Wahhabi, simply speaking.”

Is Wahhabi the root of the perversion of the term jihad and the indoctrination of that perversion amongst Arab Muslims? Or is my question based on a false assumption? Or neither?

7 posted on 02/07/2003 9:38:09 PM PST by Voice in your head (Nuke Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
...Indeed it appears to me that these Islamist-terrorists are more Arab nationalists...

Good description. Al-Qaeda acts somewhat like the Mafia too.

8 posted on 02/07/2003 9:43:57 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Going to war without France is like going deer-hunting without an accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
I could not agree more. I have long believed that Arab culture is the real enemy, not Islam. I think that the effectiveness with which a government claiming to have divine right can control an uneducated, conformist population is dangerous to itself and its neighbors. Because the social sciences are so difficult to analyze, due to so many uncertain variables (people), it is difficult to cite a clear piece of evidence, one way or the other. However, I would compare and contrast Kuwait and Bosnia as an illustration of the danger posed by culture, rather than religion.

In 1991, we liberated Kuwait. In 1996, we stuck our noses into the Balkan conflict. In each case, we helped Muslims. In Kuwait, the government needs us, so they are fairly cooperative, but the people tend to dislike us. In Bosnia, the Muslims love us. The difference? In my opinion, it is due to the positions of authority that religious leaders have in each culture. Bosnia does not have a whole lot of devout Muslims, because the government does not mandate Islam as a religion, nor is the government run by clerics. In Kuwait, "The religion of the State is Islam, and the Islamic Sharia is the main source of legislation." - quoted source

9 posted on 02/07/2003 9:46:19 PM PST by Voice in your head (Nuke Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
"Couldn’t the same be said of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan and the mujahideen who flocked to Bosnia, to fight alongside the Bosnian-Muslims?"

In Afghanistan, yes. In Bosnia, almost certainly not. While I do not dispute the just nature of their cause there, al-Qaeda, which was already in existence at that point, fought with a kind of brutality that scared the hell out of even their fellow Muslims. More to the point, as soon as the jihad in Bosnia was over, they invaded Kosovo. Once Kosovo was pacified, they invaded Macedonia. So whatever al-Qaeda's motivations for sending its foot soldiers to Bosnia, a point should be stressed that the acts were not done for altruistic principles any more than the terrorist group's current support to oppressed Muslims in China is.

"I believe that this is largely the result of the principle that power corrupts. The Muslim clerics of the Arab nations have power, in that their words carry the weight of authority with them. The most devout Christian, in my opinion, is not going to go forth and kill, if his priest were to tell him to do so. The Christian is open to the idea that his priest is wise, but that all people are capable of sin."

I agree with this to a certain extent, but I think that the lack a non-Wahhabi clerical authority in Sunni Islam (gone since the caliphate collapsed) is part of the problem. Because there is no legitimate counter-authority in the absence of the caliph, Wahhabi organizations can issue proclamations and fatwas and there is no mechanism within Sunni Islam for saying that they are wrong. Under that type of system, militants can basically "shop around" until they find clerics they like and then hold them up as arbiters of divine authority.

"I believe that you are comparing the real Crusades with ”Al-Qaeda’s jihad” rather than with real jihad. I am trying to ask if the term “Crusade” was perverted in the same manner as the term jihad - asking if history is repeating itself, as it appears to me that it is."

To a certain extent yes, but the situation within Islam is drastically worse because Christianity at least had a mechanism to shut down the Crusades: the European monarchs and the pope. Within Islam and in particular Wahhabism, jihad is now a non-state enterprise and since there is a noticeable absence of authority there is no real way to shut it down.

"Is Wahhabi the root of the perversion of the term jihad and the indoctrination of that perversion amongst Arab Muslims? Or is my question based on a false assumption? Or neither?"

Wahhabism is almost certainly the root of the concept of jihad as a non-state enterprise and therefore of modern Islamic terrorism. The al-Saud clan in Riyadh were basically bandits on the fringes of the Ottoman Empire until Ibn Abd al-Wahhab agreed to give them his spiritual authority. Wahhab wanted to scrap all of Islamic tradition and jurisprudence to start things over with just the Qur'an (as he interpreted it, of course). The result is spiritual chaos, which can easily be exploited by opportunistic individuals like bin Laden.

Nor is it simply an Arab problem. Wahhabi mi$$ionary activities are a global venture, courtesy of Saudi oil money. Wherever you see violence, intolerance, and terrorism in the Islamic world, Wahhabism is right behind it. This is something the US is going to have to recognize sooner or later, IMO.
10 posted on 02/07/2003 10:05:21 PM PST by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo
Jihad is fundamental to the practice of true Islam. According to Mohammed, by their very existence all other religions blaspheme Allah. Islam states that men cannot know the essence of Allah and any attempt to do so is blasphemy, punishable by death. In Islam the dynamic between man and Allah is essentially one of slave to master. Therefore, Islam is in fact in a constant state of "jihad" with all non-Muslims. The Christian concept of Trinity is particularly at odds with the Muslim view of Divinity since Christianity portrays the Divinity as a loving, caring entity and Man as being made in its likeness. It's blasphemy for a true Muslim to even attempt to discern the nature of the Divinity as Christianity has attempted to do.
In the New Testament there is no mention of Crusade being required in the practice of true Christianity. Nor is there mention of anything even analagous to the concept of jihad. While it is true that Christianity has been perverted to justify despicable acts, acts as these were not sanctioned nor approved by Jesus Christ and are not required of those who practice the religion. However, based on the teachings of Mohammed it is a Muslims duty to convert, or if he refuses conversion to Islam, to murder the non-believer. The Koran explicitly states that it is the right of all Muslims to the non-believers property and in addition urges the enslavement and ownership of the infidels women and children. Let's face it (liberal apologist academics listen up please!) 1400 years has been enough time to show what a destructive debilitating ideology Islam truly is. Far from a "religion of peace" it sanctions the enslavement of peoples, the denigration and abuse of women and unlike Christianity, encourages and justifies looting, rape and murder.Wherever it has "mainstreamed", people have been rounded up and murdered en masse, cultures and economies touched by Islam have been almost without exception destroyed by it. This is also true in the present. Can anyone out there name a single country in which Islam is the dominant ideology that has a diverse, viable economy, where individual rights are respected, where religious, economic and cultural freedoms flourish? There are NONE. Islam, invented by Mohammed to justify his abhorrent (even by the standards of his contemporaries)personal behavior and his thirst for blood, booty and power has shown itself to be greatly to mankind's detriment. When will George Bush and company "get it"?
11 posted on 02/07/2003 10:22:21 PM PST by Rocco1958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Before getting caught up with Holy views that transcend the ordinary man, one ought to understand the Crusades are a reaction to the onslaught of militant Islam. That the ordinary man can understand.
12 posted on 02/07/2003 10:39:16 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rocco1958
"In the New Testament there is no mention of Crusade being required in the practice of true Christianity. Nor is there mention of anything even analagous to the concept of jihad. While it is true that Christianity has been perverted to justify despicable acts, acts as these were not sanctioned nor approved by Jesus Christ and are not required of those who practice the religion."

Is the same true of Islam, as well? Jihad has a definition. That definition has been perverted. Therefore, would it be reasonable to surmise that the prophet of Islam does not approve, just as the Christian prophet may not have approved of "Crusades"?

"Can anyone out there name a single country in which Islam is the dominant ideology that has a diverse, viable economy, where individual rights are respected, where religious, economic and cultural freedoms flourish?"

Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan

Could you please document any or all of the following?
"Islam states that men cannot know the essence of Allah and any attempt to do so is blasphemy, punishable by death."
"In Islam the dynamic between man and Allah is essentially one of slave to master."
"... based on the teachings of Mohammed it is a Muslims duty to convert, or if he refuses conversion to Islam, to murder the non-believer."
"The Koran explicitly states that it is the right of all Muslims to the non-believers property..."
"... and in addition urges the enslavement and ownership of the infidels women and children."
"[Islam] sanctions the enslavement of peoples, the denigration and abuse of women and unlike Christianity, encourages and justifies looting, rape and murder."

13 posted on 02/07/2003 11:04:09 PM PST by Voice in your head (Nuke Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
Many good points. Thank you.
14 posted on 02/07/2003 11:04:46 PM PST by Voice in your head (Nuke Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Voice in your head
I always thought that the one thing that says it all about how perverse and violent Islam is how at one point the prophet himself ordered the sodomizing of young boys. Any religion whose main prophet and founder would do that is pathetic and just evil.
Never did Christ tell his followers to rape, kill, loot, sodomize, or kill anyone. NO ONE can say that about Mohammed. God is less the center of the religion than the Christian religions.
16 posted on 02/07/2003 11:17:49 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
V-h:

I have neither the time or the inclination right now to post specific references to your "please document" request of Rocco. However, I believe (s)he made a fairly good paraphrase of all of those tenets written in the Koran.

Thank you for reminding me/us of those three countries including Turkey. I think it is really the only one which is truly on a good footing, but the others have a chance. I was thinking of India as a response, but the population there is very mixed being only about 25% Muslim, I believe.
17 posted on 02/08/2003 4:40:38 AM PST by AFPhys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
There you go........nice post. There seems to be this misguided notion that the Crusades were begun to force Christianity among the non-believers. It was started to only stop the radical Muslims as you said.

With the barbarians at the gates......there was no choice. Remarkable how history keeps repeating itself, isn't it?

18 posted on 02/08/2003 4:50:06 AM PST by Dazedcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Could it be that simple illiteracy and lack of education is the root of hatred in the Middle East and the source from which the literate spiritual leaders are able to exert their influence over the people?

The liberals like this explanation, but it's not quite reality. In Spencer's book, ISLAM UNVEILED, he lays out how Islam rejected intellectualism, philosophy and science about a thousand years ago. For instance, scientific laws are rejected as blasphemy, since it would box in Allah. Islam is the source of the corruption, not illiteracy.

Most of your questions are fully answered in ISLAM UNVEILED. He lays out why Islam can't support democracy, freedom, etc. The foundational books of Islam (Koran, Sharia, etc) mitigate against moderation.

19 posted on 02/08/2003 9:17:12 AM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
"...he lays out how Islam rejected intellectualism, philosophy and science about a thousand years ago."

What was the catalyst for this rejection? It was my understanding that early Islamic culture actually started universities (or equivalents) and sought to gather and spread knowledge. However, I have never heard what exactly caused this culture to change and embrance ignorance.

20 posted on 02/08/2003 5:36:02 PM PST by Voice in your head (Nuke Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
The concept of scientific laws was rejected on the basis that God could always do what he wanted, and wouldn't or couldn't limit himself by such laws. Philosophy was rejected at the same time, since it began to reveal contradictions in the Koran. A major Islamic book was published at that time which condemned these things, putting Arabia permanently in the dark ages.
21 posted on 02/09/2003 1:03:20 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
"The concept of scientific laws was rejected on the basis that God could always do what he wanted, and wouldn't or couldn't limit himself by such laws."

Why would there be the assumption that God would be subject to the same scientific laws that we are subject to?

"Philosophy was rejected at the same time, since it began to reveal contradictions in the Koran."

Why would philosophy be rejected due to its revelation of contradictions in the Koran, rather than just using jive to explain away the contradictions? Go to google.com and type in "bible contradictions" and you will see a near endless listing of sites that discuss biblical contradictions - this did not cause Christians to reject philosophy. Why the difference with the Muslims?

"A major Islamic book was published at that time which condemned these things, putting Arabia permanently in the dark ages."

What was the name of the book?

22 posted on 02/14/2003 3:57:31 AM PST by Voice in your head (Nuke Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
this is coming from an Arab-American (yes, both are in my blood, not passport)who have lived in both the Arab and American worlds,

Jihad is not about fighting infidels. It is about fighting infidels who are attacking either ISlam, or Islamic countries.

Now I wil lset a few things straight. Arab culture is NOT the enemy. Whoever thought of this idea was completely ignorant. The arab culture is a very generous and welcoming culture. The morons (Bin laden, brainwashed followers, Khomeini) pissed all over the once great Arab reputaion of hospitality. IF you would leave your (probably) secluded town yo live in and actually visit the arab world you might not make yourself look as rediculous with your opinions. My mother wold be considered a WASP, she moved to Kuwait in the 1970s to teach (after teaching al lvoer europe and the USA) and fell in love withthe people and has been there ever since. She is a Christian (Catholic) and sometimes attends one of the 4 churches lcated in Kuwait. yeah, the arab world is so evil huh? If you are ever invited to a typical Arab family's home, you would be treated better than every member of that family.


The purpose of Jihad has been abused, just like the crusaders. oh yeah, buddy, you forgot to mension that when the Crusaders intered JArusalem they also slaughtered every non-christian (Jewish civilians, Muslim civilians). There is a huge amount of stupidity going around the muslim world and that makes all the good muslims look bad.

by the way, i dont know if u have ever heard the term 'BS', but Bin Laden is full of it, and that is precicely why he uses Islam as an excuse for the 9-11 attacks, which by the way killed more Muslims than Jewish people. There were a good number of Muslims in the twin towers atthe time of the attack. ahem the media didnt bother to mention that.

The topic of Isreal, alot of you people seem to show your ignorance when it comes to this. YES, suicide bombs in Israeli civilians is horrible, and I condemn it. the only thign that bugs me is that nobody botherd to look at how the problem started in the first place. A bunch of Zionists convinced the UN that because their holy book says current day ISrael belongs to the jews, that they should be able to kick all its inhabitants out, and form their own country with no regard to where they will live. Oh, and if they attempt to fight back, they are evil and shouldbe killed. Last time i checked, kicking someone out of their own land and playing the victim and using a holy book that is almost a millenia old is not only STUPID, but unreligious in every shape or form. Though shall not kill my a$$. Hundreds of thousands of palestinian children and adults have been mutilated and killed since then and nobody has done anything about it. None of you seem to be bringing up that issue now do you? SOme of you may not know this, but an american protestor was killed by a bulldozer by the israeli government while she was standing in the way of the demolition of a palestinian family's house in 2003. She is looked at as a martyr by the muslims in the area. So how evil is this Arab culture? Oh, but what the Israeli government has done to the palestinans is good, right? (notice the sarcasm, for those who are unable to pick it up).


I could go on and on disproving alot of you. But my conclusion: the holy wars, with both the muslims and christian crusaders, were both equal in stupidity, their sense of evil, and sense of expansionism. They all killed in the name of God and ironically, Islam and Christianity have alot more similarities than differences. You will find the story of the Virgin Mary and Jesus in the Quran as well.

a note: throughout my 10 years of ISlamic studies, and observations of the Quran, I never once saw anything pertaining to the idea of Prophet Mohamed sodomizing young boys. That is looked at as evil in the muslim world; it is considered rape. For rape, is capital punishment.


forgive my typos if there are any.
23 posted on 04/20/2004 8:50:57 PM PDT by ke1n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ke1n; aimhigh; Rocco1958; Angelus Errare; Cultural Jihad; keithtoo
”Now I wil lset a few things straight. Arab culture is NOT the enemy. Whoever thought of this idea was completely ignorant. The arab culture is a very generous and welcoming culture… The morons (Bin laden, brainwashed followers, Khomeini) pissed all over the once great Arab reputaion of hospitality. IF you would leave your (probably) secluded town yo live in and actually visit the arab world you might not make yourself look as rediculous with your opinions.”

I would actually agree with you. As you may have noticed, I began this thread over a year ago. Since then, I deployed to Kuwait and then Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was in Baghdad from early April through late August. While there, I spent countless hours interacting with the citizens of Baghdad and they were extremely hospitable. They loved us, and in spite of their wretched living conditions and poverty, they would offer us food, water, and anything else that they thought would help us.

I was wrong in saying that Arab culture is the enemy. I think it is more accurate to say that certain Arab and Persian societies (not all) are catalysts for the creation of terrorists and other enemies of mankind. For example, Palestinians seem to have nothing better to do than proclaim their hatred for Jews. A fair amount of the nutcases that we are fighting in Iraq are actually Syrians and Iranians. The nutjobs that flew planes into the Twin Towers were from Saudi Arabia and many of the madrasahs throughout the mideast, which instill hatred and intolerance into the Arab youth, are funded by Saudi money.

On a side note, I recently began reading “The Arab Mind” by Raphael Patai. Have you read this? If so, what is your opinion of it?

24 posted on 04/22/2004 3:23:01 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ke1n
That is looked at as evil in the muslim world; it is considered rape. For rape, is capital punishment.

Islam is a corrupt religion. You can give us platitudes about Islam, but the example above is a zinger. Under Islamic law, a conviction for rape requires 4 male witnesses, who can testify to seeing the penetration. Otherwise the woman who brought the charge is jailed. Under Islam, rape is a protected sport. Rape of a Christian woman is easy, since the testimony of a Christian is invalid.

25 posted on 04/22/2004 7:34:29 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
So-called "Islamic law" varies from country to country. It is interpretation by the theocrats who hold power. For example, in some Arab countries, women are covered head to toe, in other Arab countries, they are not - it is an interpretation of the Koran's guideline that women dress conservatively.
26 posted on 04/23/2004 3:04:47 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Islamic law is based on the Sharia. Each Arab country might accept all or part of Sharia, but the Sharia is considered perfect Islamic law and is specific in application. One interesting point of Islam is that there is no punishment in Islam for those who kill apostates.
27 posted on 04/24/2004 8:41:11 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
What is the punishment in other religions?
28 posted on 04/24/2004 10:50:42 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
In Christianity, apostates have the freedom to leave. In Hinduism, they can switch from god to god (thousands of choices).
29 posted on 04/24/2004 11:18:36 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
But what is the punishment for killing them?
30 posted on 04/24/2004 8:14:54 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
 

Say good knight to Crusade clichés [Paul Mulshine]

 

31 posted on 04/24/2004 8:17:20 PM PDT by Incorrigible (immanentizing the eschaton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ke1n
The topic of Isreal, alot of you people seem to show your ignorance when it comes to this. YES, suicide bombs in Israeli civilians is horrible, and I condemn it. the only thign that bugs me is that nobody botherd to look at how the problem started in the first place. A bunch of Zionists convinced the UN that because their holy book says current day ISrael belongs to the jews, that they should be able to kick all its inhabitants out, and form their own country with no regard to where they will live. Oh, and if they attempt to fight back, they are evil and shouldbe killed.

Actually, it is your ignorance and the willful ignorance and propaganda of your teachers that is showing. Ethnic violence in Palestine began with the Hebron Massacre in 1929 in which an Arab mob, enraged by a false rumor and violence the previous day in Jerusalem instigated by anti-semitic Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, went on a rampage to destroy the entire Jewish community in that town. 67 were killed and the rest (800) removed to Jerusalem. The Jewish military group Irgun was formed in response to it. The Arab Revolt of 1936 which was directed by the same mufti against Jews killed hundreds more. Irgun was reactivated in 1937 as a response. Three Arab armies and Palestinian Arab militias placed Israel in an almost untenable military position leading up to independence, with the intent to seize the Jewish state as soon as the British flag went down. When hostilities began, the Arabs ordered Palestinians to leave in order to create a clear killing field, fully expecting to win. They lost badly however. But falling into your own trap is not a cause for sympathy.
32 posted on 04/24/2004 9:02:07 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Rumble Thee Forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
The Crusade was in reaction to the slaughter of Christians by islamic hoards. Many of the worst things done in the Christian world have been done to stop the advances of islam and its demand of our conversion or death. There is no call for the killing of non-Christians in the Bible unlike the call for jihad in the koran and the subjection and conversion of the world to islam by the sword if necessary. To be a Christian is a personal choice unlike islam's demand for conversion or your death. The meaning of the sword on the Saudi flag.
33 posted on 04/24/2004 9:12:10 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ke1n
oh yeah, buddy, you forgot to mension that when the Crusaders intered JArusalem they also slaughtered every non-christian (Jewish civilians, Muslim civilians).

Oh yeah, just as you forgot to mention what started the Crusades in the first place, the muslims slaughtering the Christians there first.

34 posted on 04/24/2004 9:16:39 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Frankly I think we should be thankful that the Crusaders undertook their missions. Otherwise there's a good possiblity we'd all be speaking arabic now.

And if we don't watch out we're going to be in trouble again.

35 posted on 04/24/2004 9:26:02 PM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ke1n
Islam and Christianity have a lot more similarities than differences. You will find the story of the Virgin Mary and Jesus in the Quran as well.

Lie. Christianity and islam have nothing in common and it does not take a genius to see it.

We have produced totally different societies. I will take the freedoms of Protestant influenced America over any backward islamic country.

The story of the Virgin Mary and Jesus found in the koran claims the Bible is a lie and that Jesus was only a prophet who did not die on the cross and was not resurrected(I guess all of those people who knew Jesus and saw his resurrection and went to their deaths refusing to deny him went to their deaths for a lie, yeah right).

You just need look at islams deeds to see it is pure evil. It is not that hard to figure out. Any woman would be a fool to be a muslim. Only a man could get his jollys from it.

36 posted on 04/24/2004 9:35:57 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
From the "holy" Qur'an:
"[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle 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.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"


- That describes Islam's continuing objection to Christians and Jews and what your future is if they have control. This passage is the central belief of militant Islamists. There is no getting around it. It makes clear that not only is anyone who does not believe in Islam to be killed or enslaved, but anyone who does not *enforce* Islam on those under and around them is an enemy. -


From the "holy" Qur'an:
"[9.12] And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist."
"[9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse."


- 9:12 & 9:32 make it clear that simple speech is considered an attack on Islam and to be responded to with force. -


From the "holy" Qur'an:
"[9.33] He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse."


- As the foregoing shows, this is to be done by force. -


From the "holy" Qur'an:
"[9.38] O you who believe! What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah's way, you should incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world's life instead of the hereafter? But the provision of this world's life compared with the hereafter is but little.
[9.39] If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things.
[9.40] If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: Grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see, and made lowest the word of those who disbelieved; and the word of Allah, that is the highest; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[9.41] Go forth light and heavy, and strive hard in Allah's way with your property and your persons; this is better for you, if you know."

Shakir Translation (searchable)
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/
37 posted on 04/24/2004 9:39:24 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Rumble Thee Forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
For me its allot easier [it needs to be]....

We are engaged in a crusade of liberty and freedom against a jihad of tyranny, terror and Islamic oppression.

I don't really care what the actual word definitions are...I know what it is, you know what it is, and the friggin islamo-terrorist rag heads know what it is...

I don't care if you call it tiddly-winks...

Every single Islamo-Facisit Terrorist or BELIEVER...should be eradicated from this planet.
38 posted on 04/24/2004 9:41:14 PM PDT by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ke1n
Jihad is not about fighting infidels. It is about fighting infidels who are attacking either ISlam, or Islamic countries.

Read your Qur'an [Surah 9]. If I say openly "I don't believe Muhammad.", that is defined as an attack on Islam worthy of death. If Muslims can say what they want about others without retribution, that is an inequality and injustice that is worth going to war over.
39 posted on 04/24/2004 9:48:48 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Rumble Thee Forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ke1n
Keln...

You are a voice in your own wilderness...Why the heck are there not more people who stand up and denounce the lunatic Bin Laden, his ilk, his ideas and everything that freak stands for?

There is somthing in the water in the Middle East. When the Shah got booted we got a huge influx of great people into this country from Iran...

Many have been my clients....

Why in the world are the 22 countries in the middle east veritable shitholes in terms of human rights, progress, prosperity and thought? Whilst we have millions of examples of great Arab ethnic folks like you, and my many clents here in the West doing just fine and not finding a need to dress their kids up in Suicide belts, wake up every friggin morning and chant to delirium while American flags burn and AK-47 are fired willy nilly into the sky?
40 posted on 04/24/2004 9:49:29 PM PDT by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ke1n
Jihad is not about fighting infidels. It is about fighting infidels who are attacking either ISlam, or Islamic countries.

"O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed." (Koran, 9:73)

"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [all non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Koran, 8:37)

"How many were the populations we utterly destroyed because of their sins, setting up in their place other peoples." (Koran, 21:11)

"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)

Koran-(5:51): O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Koran-(9:5): “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ; but if they repent (accept Islam) and establish regular prayers and practices regular charity then open the way for them; for God is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Koran-(8:65): “ O Apostle ! Rouse the believers to the fight, if there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering , they will vanquish two hundred; if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers; for these are a people without understanding.”

Koran-2:216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you

Koran-(9:29): “Fight those who believe not the Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Koran-8:12: I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

Koran-8: 15,16: O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!

Koran-9:111: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an

Koran-9:123: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

Koran-4:95: O ye who believe! Shall I show you a commerce that will save you from a painful doom? You should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know. ... Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).

[9.14] Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.

The problem with islam is that the west can read. I am sick of the lies of islam, jihad is more than fighting those who are fighting against you and you know it. No this religion is easily proven as evil. Muslims are killing non-muslims all around the world and using islam as the reason because they are commanded to the fight.

41 posted on 04/24/2004 9:54:19 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
"I have long believed that Arab culture is the real enemy, not Islam. "

But Islam is the codification of Arab culture circa 700 AD.
42 posted on 04/24/2004 10:13:59 PM PDT by UnChained (Hillary will be the last constitutionally elected president of the US..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ke1n
Islam and Christianity have alot more similarities than differences. You will find the story of the Virgin Mary and Jesus in the Quran as well.

From the "holy" Qur'an:
"[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[4.158] Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[4.159] And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them."

- I don't know. That's not exactly how it went down in "The Passion". And the part about Jesus (Isa) condemning those that believe in the crucifixion and resurrection doesn't seem to be how my Bible reads. -

From the "holy" Qur'an:
"[5.116] And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.
[5.117] 1 did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things."

Actually, this is rather sly because Jesus never said anything about Mary. But the point is to deny divinity.
43 posted on 04/24/2004 10:14:57 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Rumble Thee Forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
One of the biggest problems encountered by non-Arabic speakers, when trying to read the Koran is the confusion that results in translation. The Arabic language is characterized by rhetoric, exaggeration and repetition. Then, on top of that, there are so many variations of words that, if not carefully chosen, meaning is easily changed or distorted. For example, I own a Koran that has a totally different translation of each of the passages that you posted. Here is an example:

What you posted:
“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle 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.”

What my copy of the Koran says:
(9:29) “Fight against such of those, to whom the Scriptures were given, as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”

Notice how your translation of the passage totally skips over “… to whom the Scriptures were given…” and the other large differences throughout the passage.

The difference in translation is likely the result of different interpretations that result from choosing different words that translate similarly into English. This difference is due to one accounting, or not accounting, for the rhetoric, exaggeration, and repetition that is characteristic of Arabic language and culture. I have been reading “The Arab Mind” which is required reading for all students of Middle Eastern Studies at the JFK Special Warfare School. It is required reading, because it helps special operations soldiers to prepare for dealing with Arab culture. There is an entire chapter on rhetoric, exaggeration, overassertion, and repetition in Arab culture and this is a common theme throughout the book, because of its impact on culture in causing miscommunication between Arabs and, more often, between Arabs and non-Arabs.

Ad naseum posting of Koranic passages that one interprets as hateful or evil or vicious and so on, does nothing more than highlight the shortcomings of our understanding of the religion and the ability of people to interpret the Koran to fit their agenda, because there are other common translations that are totally different.

44 posted on 04/25/2004 8:04:25 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
But what is the punishment for killing them?

The scriptures say that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Murder by Christians is condemned in scripture, and the punishment would be death by civil government. In Christianity, judgment for murder is left in the hands of civil government. In the book of Romans, goverment is "God's minister to execute wrath on those who do evil."

45 posted on 04/25/2004 8:09:35 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
What you posted:
“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle 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.”

What my copy of the Koran says: (9:29) “Fight against such of those, to whom the Scriptures were given, as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”

Notice how your translation of the passage totally skips over “… to whom the Scriptures were given…” and the other large differences throughout the passage.

In spite of wording differences, the intent and result of both translations is identical. Unbelievers are to be fought against until they pay a special tax. The result of both translations is oppression.

46 posted on 04/25/2004 8:16:33 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
I was using the M.H.Shakir translation.
You are using the Marmaduke Mohammad Pickthall translation.
Another important translation is by Yusuf Ali.

You can see all three in parallel text at
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

They also have a searchable Hadith database at
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

But I typically use the searchable Shakir Qur'an at
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

Beats copying it by hand.

The important thing is not the words but the meaning of the words and the universal concepts being conveyed. The Arabic words translate into mental abstractions in an Arab mind just as much as someone reading it in any other language. If the meaning of the original Arabic is ambiguous, then the Arabic is as useless as any translation whether it retains that ambiguity or settles "improperly" on only one interpretation. What is important is not what it may mean to you, me or some 12th Century Islamic "scholar" but what it could mean to anyone prepared to act on it. And what an Arabs tells you does not matter. What matters is what they tell each other. The outsider is entitled to draw whatever interpretation is possible, to find the loopholes that Muslims are famous for (ex. Hudaybiyyah) and anticipate them. Ambiguity leads to duplicity and only a fool does not consider the worst possible case. The very claim that it cannot be translated therefore condemns it as worthless babble.
47 posted on 04/25/2004 11:29:25 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Rumble Thee Forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
bump for later
48 posted on 04/25/2004 11:59:34 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you must; perform without fail that what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson