--
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:09:43 -0700, Dan Clore
<clore@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I've struggled through the Koran (yawn!) and I believe
> that your reading is correct. The passages taken out
> of context and represented as requiring "jihad"
> against all "infidels" actually simply exhort Muslims
> to fight bravely when they happen to be at war. The
> Koran also specifically prohibits starting wars, and,
> as you note, requires mercy towards the enemy.
With a little ingenuity, one can interpret religious
texts in all sorts of very strange ways, but if you want
to know how Muslims interpret these texts, they interpret
them in the obvious and straightforward way:
<http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/jihad.htm>
<http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/islamic_peace.htm>
<http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus/looking_for_saladin.htm>
<http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Mahfuzur30411.htm>
<http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushdie/yes_its_about_islam.htm>
Now Muslims could weasel out of the horrible and bloody
stuff in their religion in the same way the Jews do.
The Jews say that they would love to do all that stuff,
but alas, they have no temple, therefore are still in
exile (of course there is nothing stopping them from
reaching out and rebuilding the temple). Similarly,
Muslims if they felt inclined could say, and some do
say, that all the horrible stuff in Islam needs a
Caliph, or a commander of the faithful, or an Imam, and
since they have not got any of that, they have to
practice Islam as a peaceable and private faith. But
most Muslims are disinclined to accept that argument,
and if they did, it would be a new kind of Islam, very
different from existing Islam.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/
James A. Donald
|
