Islamic asylum seekers in Germany threaten to kill Christians

I don't think there is any content of the Qur'an that exceeds the levels of brutality shown in the Bible,

Crucifixion is specifically mentioned in the Quran as a punishment

My position is that countries that employ strict Sharia are doing so in accordance with their interpretation of the Qur'an. If they choose to interpret it so literally and without context, then they are the ones to blame rather than the Quranic text itself.

You seem to be unaware that the Koran itself states (a) that it is the word of God, (b) that it is perfect and complete, (c) that it must not be supplemented or have anything taken away, (d) must not be interpreted.

According to the Koran itself, then, there is no scope for interpretations or the taking account of what you call context - diluting it with merciful and sensible modern interpretations.

Any state that chooses to use sharia law, therefore is by definition, stuck with barbaric mediaeval law - unless its rules manage to somehow overturn that with a modern interpretation, which the clerics generally disapprove (obviously) of because of what the Koran says.

Islam is, therefore, a political superstition that is stuck permanently in the eighth century, and no country basing its laws on the Koran can advance. By sheer coincidence no country that has substantially adopted Islamic laws has advanced.

The conservative Wahabis that influence the Saudi royal family, and ISIS, are the best example of what true Sharia law is all about. Any other approach involves much weaseling around what God has told Moslems in the Koran.

Obviously, no modern state bases its laws on the Bible, and secular westerners (even the Christians) have realised long ago, though education, that the Bible is a load of barbaric old tosh.

This is what most right wing garbage doesn't take into account- the period of time the Qur'an was written for. These verses have to be contextualised, do you realise the state of the Middle East before the Qur'an was revealed? Believe it or not, these verses were improvements for the time.

But Islam, by its own standards, does not allow for historical and cutural relativism.
Islamic law/sharia is essentally based on what Allah has made halal and haram, and man cannot make halal what Allah has made haram.

"Context". It is a word that is so rarely used in its proper context amongst apologists. It usually seems to mean "I can find a contradictory verse, therefore your verse is refuted", or "That passage does not mean what it appears to mean".

The correct way to contextualise the Quran is in context of being a socio-politico-religious guide that is universal, timeless and immutable. Because that is what it is claimed to be. Most sceptics and rational people know that the Quran and Sunnah are absolutely historically and culturally relative but the issue is that 1.6 billion Muslims (or at least the ones who actively think about their belief, and remain Muslims) do not. It is pointless to address the application and implementation of The Quran and Sunnah in Islamic countries in any other context than that of absolute belief in the tenets of Islam.

We are all well aware of the unpleasent nature of much of the contents of the OT, but you'd be hard pressed to find a country that uses the OT as the basis for its constitution, or more than a handfull of Christians who consider the OT to be the timeless and perfect guide for all humanity - as relevant and applicable today as it was over 2000 years ago.

I don't know where all of these points about the Qur'an saying that it it is to be interpreted literally have come from. Where exactly does it say that? All modern islamic scholars disagree and say that it isn't to be taken literally. Logically, I would think that if a text is sent down with the view of appealing to people of that time, it would be written for people of that time. So therefore people reading it today should consider that it was indeed written in a more backward time

Of course you might think that. But you are not an ill-educated superstitious person.

Logically, if the Koran (the whole basis of Islam) says it must be interpreted literally then it must be interpreted literally with no interpretation. if this is not the case then you are following a different superstition, which you might like to call Islam Light - but it isn't Islam.

So, does the Koran say that or not? Note the following quotes (there are others, as the Koran is nothing if not repetitive):

These are God's revelations that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe? 45:6

Such was the sunna of God for those who have passed on before. You will find that there is no substitute for the sunna of God. 33:62

The sunna (practice) of God, note; not the sunna of Mohammed or the Caliph, or an imam, or Okey.

And We brought down to you the scripture, truthfully, confirming what is present of the scripture, and superseding it. So rule among them in accordance with what God has brought down, and do not follow their wishes away from the truth that came to you. 5:48

In other words, obey only the word of God, as transmitted in the Koran, and forget all the tosh you may have heard before.

The only duty of the messenger is to deliver the message. 5:99

This tells Moslems that Mohammed is only a means of transmission, and even his interpretations are invalid.

A revelation from the Lord of the worlds. Had he attributed anything falsely to Us. We would have grabbed him by the right, and We would have severed his Aorta, none of you would be able to prevent it. 69:43

If Mohammed had passed on anything he shouldn't have in the Koran things would have looked bad for him.

The word of your Lord is complete in truth and justice 6:115

These are the signs of the clear book 12:1

In other words, the Koran needs no interpretation and is complete, but, just in case you don't get the message:

This is a book whose verses have been perfected 11:1

Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? 6:114

Live by no other laws than those in the Koran.

So, the Koran is perfect, complete, not to be interpreted and God's will. There is nothing clearer and more constraining for a superstitious person, nor less conducive to modern interpretation and reformation (as many advocate, rather naively).

I understand that Sharia is the legal code of Saudi Arabia, but you have to understand that Saudi Arabia and Dubai cannot logically be representative of the wider Muslim world.

We know a few countries with problems (Saudi, Dubai, Pakistan etc.) and we know many without (Malaysia, Bangladesh, Turkey etc.) How do you argue that Islam is causative of any problems that exist? I don't see any pattern let alone causation. You simply have no argument.

And as for the straw man fallacy, you have to ask whether this is relevant when looking at the evidence. There is simply no pattern there. If you were to have credible evidence that in a large proportion of Islamic countries there are similar issues compared to a large proportion of non-Islamic countries without- then you'd have an argument. Fortunately, that is not the case.

very odd how you sound the most like a terrorist than anyone else on this thread. Both you and them seem to think there is no substitute to violence and pillaging in the quran

very odd how you sound the most like a terrorist than anyone else on this thread. Both you and them seem to think there is no substitute to violence and pillaging in the quran

The fact that many Muslim majority countries do not implement a fully sharia-compliant legal system does not affect the nature of the fundamental ideology. Many of those countries have in place a system that has been tempered by decades or centuries of secular democracy, colonialism, and modernist influences.

KSA, Iran, Yemen, ISIS, etc, may not be representative of all Muslims - but they are certainly representative of the Islam as revealed by Allah and promoted by Muhammad.

Have you not noticed that in the examples you cite, the degree to which the Quran and Sunnah are used as the basis of the legal system seem to have a major bearing on the "problems" that certain groups face.

For instance, take the case of Mohammad al Nimr in Saudi Arabia. He has been sentenced to crucifixion and death as a punishment for anti-government activities. Due to the inextricable connection between state and Islam in KSA, his crime conforms to the Quranic offence of "fasad" (spreading corruption/mischief). Sura 5:33 states "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified"
(The Arabic word used in that verse is "fasad", which is defined as "an Islamic concept which means spreading mischief in a Muslim land, moral corruption against God, and any form of expression or activity by non-Muslims or apostates of Islam that creates disorder in the Muslim community".

Of course, you could play the historical relativism card, but Ibn Kathir's tafsir describes the application of that verse to be "general in meaning and includes the idolators and all others who commit the types of crimes the Ayah mentioned"

Now, seriously, without that verse in the Quran (there are others that could apply, as well as sahih hadith), do you think that the Saudi authorities would be executing and crucifying him? Do you claim that it is mere coincidence?

But if you compare systems that implement a literal interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, there is a clear pattern.

I'm just explaining the logic of Islam. I can't help it if there are people in this world who are superstitious enough to follow it. I also can't help it (but welcome) if others don't really understand its full implications but do not follow it properly and choose to do so in a more reasonable way. However, you claimed that strict Sharia interpretations are just that - interpretations - and that Islam itself is not to be blamed, and also that modern interpretations are reasonable.

The truth is that Islam is not to be interpreted (according to its own Koran - the ultimate authority) and therefore Islam itself is at fault. The sooner it (along with all other religions) disappears, the better, in my view.

It is obvious to anyone of the meanest intelligence that the whole edifice was invented by a conniving warlord who identified that superstitious desert dwellers could be manipulated by a judicious bit of scriptural invention, and that the world should have been educated out of it by now. However, all those Moslems are clear evidence that people will believe anything if it is sold in the right way.

Again, what solution do you propose?

Comparing systems that implement a literal interpretation of the Quran can tell us that there is clearly a problem in interpreting the Quran literally.

Religions will eventually die as a by-product of mass education. It is a pity that some believers try to stifle or to subvert the process (whether that is creationist interference in science lessons or just organisations like Boko Haram and the Taliban stopping girls from being educated at all), but that is to be expected.



Of course there is. But that is Islam. Did you read and understand nothing of what I posted before describing me as a terrorist? Or can I take it you have your fingers in your ears and are humming loudly to yourself?

your suggestion is ridiculous. You want to actually diminish people's freedom of speech in education so your ideas are the only ones there so people have to believe them. You call that mass education? You sound more like a terrorist than I thought.

I think it's time for me to mute this thread. was nice speaking to you...

My position is that countries that employ strict Sharia are doing so in accordance with their interpretation of the Qur'an. If they choose to interpret it so literally and without context, then they are the ones to blame rather than the Quranic text itself.

I don't think there is any content of the Qur'an that exceeds the levels of brutality shown in the Bible,

yet there is no/ very little example of Christian countries implementing such inhumane laws. This means that it is not the Qur'an itself, but its interpretation of it.

I don't believe that you can say that these laws can be linked to Islam as such anymore than you could argue that Christianity is to blame for the Chapel Hill shooting for instance.

It is people's interpretation of these texts that gives them their justification for their actions. A sociopath will have a violent interpretation of any religion, whilst the millions of moderate Muslims around the world have their own rational interpretations involving contextualisation which cannot be tied to any deaths.

I don't know where all of these points about the Qur'an saying that it it is to be interpreted literally have come from.

All modern islamic scholars disagree and say that it isn't to be taken literally.

Logically, I would think that if a text is sent down with the view of appealing to people of that time, it would be written for people of that time. So therefore people reading it today should consider that it was indeed written in a more backward time, and it can be interpreted with that considered. I think that is what produces moderate muslims- rationality. I don't think it's sensible to generalise 1.6 billion people as not thinking about their faith and to then call yourself "rational".

So you ask for evidence of what the quran says and when given it you accuse the poster of sounding like a terrorist

Comparing systems that implement a literal interpretation of the Quran can tell us that there is clearly a problem in interpreting the Quran literally. Nothing else.

Comparing systems that implement a variety of interpretations of the Quran tell us that there is no pattern of behaviour other than that there are few problems with those who interpret with context, and that there are many problems with those who interpret literally and without context. This being said, there isn't any point in attacking the religion as such (as so many can interpret it without problem), but there is logical cause to tackle extremist ideas within Muslim communities. Something I personally have been working to achieve as part of the Quilliam group- yet something nobody on this thread is willing to consider. Rather, they see it more fit to condemn the entire religion and followers of it. Very rational.

Additionally, Ibn Kathir's interpretation is his own. If he believes it to mean that crucifixion is justified then that is his own belief, and he as an individual is to be held accountable for it. He doesn't speak for 1.6 billion Muslims, so the "historic relativism" card as you put it can be played without any opposition from yourself to say the least.