At 2/26/2012 6:07:23 PM, Microsuck wrote:
I have began a blog to challenge Islam: http://challengingmuslims.blogspot.com...
I would like your thoughts on the blog and the Muslims response.
Your posts on atheism/philosophy of God shouldn't be specifically in that blog. You're using the same argument as the ones against Christianity. I think you lack a lot of facts (and misrepresent many) in your posts about the hadith/Qur'an and their take on terrorism. I'll give a short rebuttal:
1: You claim that Muslims are mistaken in defining "Jihad" as "inner struggle." You claim that according to the "Dictionary of Islam," which doesn't even exist, it means "Holy War." Your source is biased, coming from someone who writes about why he is not a Muslim. A more detailed quote would be better.
Jihad does indeed mean "to strive, struggle." The Arabic term of "Holy War" is "Harb ul-Muqadasa." In none of your hadith quotes can that be found, and in no
Qur'anic verse or any authentic hadith can you find the words "Harb ul-Muqadasa." It's just not there, much like I am not in your room right now.
Jihad can also mean external struggle, in which case you can connect it to battles. If there's a nation that is being oppressed, Muslims are obliged to defend against the oppressors. Even though it is related to physical fights, you cannot say it means "Holy War," because you're innovating a wholly unfamiliar concept in Islam.
2: You are associating the terms "Jihad" and "terrorism" falsely. Even if Jihad meant Holy War, there's nothing which suggests that it means terrorism. That word originated during the French Revolution, long after the Qur'an was revealed. Holy War can be good, don't you think? If the Sikhs in India attacked all innocent Hindus, the Hindus would not be waging a terrorist war by defending themselves. That would be their Holy War, and there would be nothing wrong with it.
3: The verses you quoted from the Qur'an promote
peace. You tried using the so-called "Cut and Paste" method of quoting the Qur'an, where you take a little part of a whole verse in order to prove your point. The verses you quoted start by calling Muslims to battle, then they end by saying:
"But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
"But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression"
If they don't end with that, they begin by saying, "Fight those who fight you.
" If you think that is terrorism, I'm afraid we'll never cease our discussions on the subject, because on one hand, I think defense battles are completely fine, while you think they are terrorist acts. That's a fundamental difference, unfortunately.
4: You quote verses not only out of context (though you still get the parts promoting peace if the enemy wishes it), but you completely ignore their historical contexts. For example, how would you apply this verse to our times? "But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there." It's impossible. There's no doubt that this verse talks about a dispute that happened 14 centuries ago. You're not taking the historical facts into discussion whatsoever.
The fact is, most of the Qur'anic verses concerning war speak of battles that happened during the times of the beloved Prophet. Muslims were constantly oppressed, and when they were to engage in battles, the Qur'an was their number one commander. That's why it instructed them to fight. The historical context tells us that the fights were defensive, and even if the verses simply said "fight the disbelievers," it would be enough. But most go on to say that Muslims should fight only those who fight them. I can cite countless verses for you.
"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers."
"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then force mankind, against their will, to believe!"
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace."
To cite a few. So, you're concluding way too fast, and you're not writing simple facts on your blog, no doubt about that.