What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

[snopes]

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm

[hoitoider]

He learned how to make a sarcastic analogy:

from SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS"
To John Tyler
Monticello, May 26, 1810

...The opinion seems to be that Blackstone is to us what the Alcoran is to the Mahometans, that everything which is necessary is in him, and what is not in him is not necessary....

[Troberg]

Calling the Koran "the book of Jihad" is about as correct and as derogative as calling the Bible "the book of Crusades" or "the book of witch burning", and it pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the article.

[King_Crimson]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Calling the Koran "the book of Jihad" is about as correct and as derogative as calling the Bible "the book of Crusades" or "the book of witch burning", and it pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the article.

Hello there Troberg Nice to meet you.

Have you read the Quran? I agree that it would be incorrect to call it the "book of Jihad" because it is called the Quran!

However, how about these authentic (sahih) Muslim texts?

Sahih Bukhari - Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihad)


Sahih Muslim - The Book of Jihad

Note: Sahih means "Authentic" or "Genuine" and has to do with the reliability of the chain of transmittors (for the narrations contained within the collection).


Thanks

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Calling the Koran "the book of Jihad" is about as correct and as derogative as calling the Bible "the book of Crusades" or "the book of witch burning", and it pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the article.

But we have been told by Muslim teachers that Jihad does not necessarily mean anything about violence or literal fighting. So why should this word be considered derogatory? (Or would you consider it a case in which the word may correctly be used only by followers of Islam? Or... ?)

I have been told, in all seriousness, that we can't trust anything a Muslim says to us because it is not a sin for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims.

There's some kind of logical fallacy in that*, but the danger is reflected in that I have known people who are perfectly willing to believe that all Muslims are liars. This does not contribute to any kind of fellow feeling or willingness to reconcile our differences.

So there are people out there who believe that a jihad is (and can only be) a war of violence and aggression, rather than a discussion. And, of course, our teachers who teach this lie are more believable than Muslim teachers who teach that jihad is more than one thing.

Gofer

*This is mostly sarcasm, but I am having trouble coming up with a term for the belief that the actions of the few reflect the intentions of the many.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by King_Crimson

Have you read the Quran? I agree that it would be incorrect to call it the "book of Jihad" because it is called the Quran!

However, how about these authentic (sahih) Muslim texts?

Sahih Bukhari - Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihad)


Sahih Muslim - The Book of Jihad

Note: Sahih means "Authentic" or "Genuine" and has to do with the reliability of the chain of transmittors (for the narrations contained within the collection).

The OP didn't call one of those books "The Book of Jihad." It called the Quran "The Book of Jihad."

[King_Crimson]

Originally Posted by Gofer

I have been told, in all seriousness, that we can't trust anything a Muslim says to us because it is not a sin for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims.

There's some kind of logical fallacy in that*, but the danger is reflected in that I have known people who are perfectly willing to believe that all Muslims are liars. This does not contribute to any kind of fellow feeling or willingness to reconcile our differences.

So there are people out there who believe that a jihad is (and can only be) a war of violence and aggression, rather than a discussion. And, of course, our teachers who teach this lie are more believable than Muslim teachers who teach that jihad is more than one thing.

Gofer

*This is mostly sarcasm, but I am having trouble coming up with a term for the belief that the actions of the few reflect the intentions of the many.

Hello Gofer: Muslims are permitted to Lie in any way that they percieve, may advance Islam. This is called Al-Taqqiya (the Legal Lie). They are also permitted to break vows/oaths/promises that they have made, as long as they 'expiate' (make up for it) to Allah.

Let me know if you'd like Islamic sources for these

Thanks

[King_Crimson]

Originally Posted by Lainie

The OP didn't call one of those books "The Book of Jihad." It called the Quran "The Book of Jihad."

Agree. However the Quran lacks context and chronology, so the Hadith are required to explain and give context to the Quran.

Say Surah Al-Nissa ayat 3 says you have to treat orpans justly (which it does); it doesn't explain what it means by "treating them justly" so we must look to the hadith to explain the circumstance that led to the revelation, and the explanations given by Muhammad and his companions as to the meaning (what was intended).

So the hadith are required to garner meaning from the Quran (in the vast majority of cases).

This is why the Tafseer writer's (Quran commentators) quote from the major hadith collections heavily when they explain the meaning of the Quran.

So the "books of Jihad" I cited contain meanings and circumstances to the Jihad verses in the Quran, as well as Circumstances/meanings in which is was used in the time of Muhammad and his companions.

Hope this is more clear than my original post

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by King_Crimson

Agree. However the Quran lacks context and chronology, so the Hadith are required to explain and give context to the Quran.

[snip]

Hope this is more clear than my original post

Yes. But it changes nothing about the OP. Do you really think the person who wrote the linked article has studied the Hadith?

Your opinions of Islamic scripture are one thing -- I am neither inclined to accept them at face value nor qualified to refute them. I leave that argument to someone else. But you cannot use your knowledge to rationalize statements made by someone else without evidence that they share that knowledge.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by King_Crimson

Muslims are permitted to Lie in any way that they percieve, may advance Islam.

This phenomenon is also present in Christianity. It's known as "glurge."

- snopes

[Dropbear]

Its one of those irregular verbs again:

I tell parables,
You are creative with the truth,
They lie

Dropbear

[Troberg]

But we have been told by Muslim teachers that Jihad does not necessarily mean anything about violence or literal fighting. So why should this word be considered derogatory? (Or would you consider it a case in which the word may correctly be used only by followers of Islam? Or... ?)

Is there any doubt that the text in the OP refered to it as a derogative?

Agree. However the Quran lacks context and chronology, so the Hadith are required to explain and give context to the Quran.

I would think that most Moslems consider the Quran to stand for itself, and any interpretations or explanations are potential introductions of errors. Prefarably, it should even be read in Arabic, as translations may introduce errors.

Whatever way you look at it, you must agree that a book must stand on it's own merits, and what other books say is their responsibility.

[King_Crimson]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Is there any doubt that the text in the OP refered to it as a derogative?



I would think that most Moslems consider the Quran to stand for itself, and any interpretations or explanations are potential introductions of errors. Prefarably, it should even be read in Arabic, as translations may introduce errors.

Whatever way you look at it, you must agree that a book must stand on it's own merits, and what other books say is their responsibility.

The Quran stands by itself in the way that it is considered to be the literal word of Allah, and the hadith (words/deeds of Muhammad) are considered "inspired".

They acknowledge that the Quran cannot stand by itself, because it talks about the Five Pillars of Islam (which are required) but the Quran does not specify exactly how to do them. Also the Quran says that Muslims are to follow Muhammad's "Sunna" (example).

These things and explanations can only be found in the hadith.

True, there are some Muslims who are "Quran-Only" (sometimes called "Submittors"), but to the vast majority of Muslims, these people are heretics (their words not mine).

Muslims are therefore required to follow the Quran and ahadith; as the Quran tells them to. But of course if a narration (single hadith) contradicts the Quran, then they can reject it.

Every Muslim (except the one's i have mentioned) follow at least the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari and Muslim) as these are ones that are considered to be the "most genuine"; ie. the greatest possibility that Muhammad said/did these things.

So in this way, the Quran cannot stand "on its own merits". Also it can't, because it claims to be the "return" to the "Same God" of Abraham; ie. the Previous scriptures (Bible) have been deliberately corrupted by Christians and Jews, so the Quran is "what God really meant." Therfore, Islam leans entirely on Judaism/Christianity for the entire basis of its religion since it is the "correction" of the previous.


My apologies if my post is in any way offensive; I'm just sharing some of my knowledge, as I have been studying Islam for quite awhile now; although sometimes I don't explain things in the correct way (my apologies).


Thanks

[King_Crimson]

Originally Posted by Lainie

Yes. But it changes nothing about the OP. Do you really think the person who wrote the linked article has studied the Hadith?

Your opinions of Islamic scripture are one thing -- I am neither inclined to accept them at face value nor qualified to refute them. I leave that argument to someone else. But you cannot use your knowledge to rationalize statements made by someone else without evidence that they share that knowledge.

I've just read through some of his other articles regarding Islam and it appears that he discusses Islamic events, that are only recounted in the hadith. If you like I can email him and ask?

He certainly knows at least a little bit about Islam; and anything (even a little) more than rudimentary knowledge about Islam means you learn about the hadith; since Muslims rely on them so heavily.

My opinions of Islamic scripture? My knowlege is garnered from Islamic Scholars, the Quran, the ahadith and debates with Muslims. They are not so much my opinions about Islamic scripture, but the understandings of scholars/experts and Muslims themselves.

I debate Muslims every day; and if I were in error, I would have been corrected surely?

Anyway, apologies again if I have offended anyone with my post; I was merely trying to inform


Thanks