Disturbing Interview at GW

[theprizefighter]

Mr. Rosewater,

Well I guess if you saw it on TV, it must be true. What a crock. Muslims hate Bin Laden, including his own country men. Get off the couch and into the real world itself if you want see the truth instead of what Fox News feeds you.


theprizefighter

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mr. Rosewater]

Originally posted by theprizefighter
Mr. Rosewater,

Well I guess if you saw it on TV, it must be true. What a crock. Muslims hate Bin Laden, including his own country men. Get off the couch and into the real world itself if you want see the truth instead of what Fox News feeds you.


theprizefighter

i'm sure there are plenty of muslims who don't condone ubl ( i never said there weren't), however i did say that there is a significant portion that does condone him. what's your point anyway, are you saying that footage of sympathetic rallies is just doctored? if so, can you back that up w/ anything? i'd be very open to seeing it. and, not that i need to justify myself, i happen to be pretty lib and wouldn't watch fox news if you paid me.

edit to add: perhaps this is a disturbing subject for pple to discuss on a message board. i know i don't feel personally attacked discussing the many failings of my own Catholic church, but if others feel attacked on this point that i've brought up, i'm sorry.

 

[theprizefighter]

Mr. Rosewater,

I'd have to know what footage you've watched on what channel in what country and what commentary was supplied in describing the supposedley pro-bin Laden event you described. I'm sure they've occured but not on the "significant" level you've suggested without a micron of evidence to support your assertion. Was the event you watched depicting events in Malaysia? Saudia Arabia? Europe? How frequently have you watched such rallies? Do you do nothing else? Maybe you could even provide us a link to such TV coverage. I'm sure we would all like to see the website it came from.

Your failure to provide any of this basic info combined with your undying trust in the truth of television is supremely mindless on your part. It's people like you that propagate ignorance even while you claim to be clearing up such ignorance. What a shame.

theprizefighter

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -Albert Einstein

 

[theprizefighter]

Hi, All

I'm not trying to come off as angry in my posts so please don't take offense (hint hint Mr. Rosewater). I'm sorry if I've offended anyone but I think I've gotten some good point across in clearing up some misconceptions about Islam and Muslims. I never thought I'd being doing that since I don't talk about religion much. Go figure. Time to go listen to some Coldplay.


theprizefighter

 

[Mr. Rosewater]

fwiw, coming off like an a$$hole and then saying no offense doesn't make it better.
to the topic, i don't have links to every antiamerican rally that's ever been held and broadcast. i'm sure many of these rallies were of the civil disobedience/voice your displeasure w/ policy variety. however, many that i have seen have contained signs and posters of ubl in places of prominence. furthermore, it is my understanding (and this was my real point) that ubl enjoyed iconic status throughout much of the middle east. there have been NUMEROUS tv reports which conveyed this type of info (peter arnaut on cnn and others).

back to you. you called me mindless. FU. i was bringing up a point for discussion. i'm open to other peoples ideas. i was actually reaching out to a member of another group for enlightenment. i've already said that i'd be willing to discuss the numerous, serious ways that my particular group has f'ed up. the difference is, i can do it w/o trying to paint the other parties as biggots and w/o insulting them personally. hopefully the coldplay will relax you a little and you can discuss this w/o the emotional nonsense. if not, then feel free to ignore me, as i'm not interested in a pissing contest.

 

[Brickhouse]

Whew - and I was under the impression that this thread would be about GWU! Thank god I was wrong and it's really a religious tirade!

I am sorry to the OP for the unfortunate interview situation, but lots of schools have stories like this, where the interviewer oversteps the boundaries of an appropriate interview, and I think shooting down the entire school because of it is hasty and perhaps unwise? I would report your concerns and you have the right to be heard, however, I had a nice interview experience there and will happily matriculate in August. I had a bad interview experience somewhere else but I just decided for myself I would not go there, but out of respect for the hundreds of students there, I'm not going to accuse the entire institution of misconduct. I don't mean to overreact but I find it unnerving that my future school is being associated with religious intolerance via this thread. I don't think that's fair.

 

[Adapt]

Originally posted by Brickhouse
I find it unnerving that my future school is being associated with religious intolerance via this thread.

There's only one thing you can do. Withdraw from the school right now in protest and severely rebuke their religious intolerance in your withdrawal letter.

 

[UCIgrad2002]

i honestly feel we should close this thread as it has deviated from the main topic, as brickhouse said (btw, brickhouse, congrats on your acceptance to GW! did u interview on oct. 15th?).

anyway, to the OP, i fully understand your concern, but i would not base the reputation of a school over a conversation with an interviewer. many interviewers do cross the line, and at many times they might need to, in order to get a reaction out of the interviewee. i may not agree with those methods, but i wouldn't use it to make a judgement on a school such as GW. i honestly think the school is great with a great faculty, student body, and superb facilities. anway, i wish you all the best and once again, am sorry you had a terrible interview experience. i also apologize that this thread has become a religious battle. best wishes to you and everyone. salaam (peace).

 

[bigbaubdi]

Originally posted by Brickhouse
Whew - and I was under the impression that this thread would be about GWU! Thank god I was wrong and it's really a religious tirade!

I am sorry to the OP for the unfortunate interview situation, but lots of schools have stories like this, where the interviewer oversteps the boundaries of an appropriate interview, and I think shooting down the entire school because of it is hasty and perhaps unwise?

For the record, I am withdrawing from GW because of their financial aid, not because of my experience with this one interviewer.

I am sorry if anyone got the wrong impression but I think GW is an excellent medical school. My problem is with this particular interviewer.

 

[CalBeE]

Didn't get a chance to read all the posts here...


But was George Washington affiliated with any religious organization (historically)? LIke Georgetown used to be a Jesuit school right? Or am I mixing it up again...

I've heard of the Qu'ran containing much violence in the past...but I'm a Christian converted to an Agnostic, and I feel that the Bible also mentioned stuff that will be considered controversial to the moral values nowadays. Even if the translations are exactly right, you have to take into context of the situation and beliefs of the time.

 

[celticmists18]

Brickhouse: first, congrats on getting in to GW its a great school. second, I wouldn't let what anyone has said here alter your feeling about the school . . . its all opinion steeped in LOTS of personal emotion and belief (yeah, I know I'm going to catch a lot of flack for what I just said but que sera sera).
Also, I really do feel for the person who started this thread (sorry can't find your name, unable to scroll back that far now that I'm writing). your not alone on being asked a "illegal" question. (gotta love those insinuations about are you planning on having children)

 

[good_faith]

Originally posted by UCIgrad2002
I stumbled across this thread because I interviewed at GW in october. I would like to shed some light on this issue and clarify some misunderstandings. First off, I was shocked to hear of the OP's interview experience. True, the interviewer maybe testing the interviewee, but I honestly feel that ethically and morally, out of respect for the interviewee, that it was a wrong debate to have.

I strive daily to live as humbly as possible and steer away from feelings of anger, but when I read some of the comments posted on this thread, I was shocked. There is no way that I can defend the beauty and eloquence of the Qur'an in a posting, but allow me to clarify some misunderstandings. Obviously many people have watched TV specials of how the Qur'an endorces violence and hatred. First off, no one can genuinely understand the linguistics of the Qur'an unless one is fluent in Arabic, primarily classical Arabic. There have been many translations of the Qur'an that are not in parallel with the authentic ones transcribed by scholars. The translations which we saw on TV were not from authentic English versions which the majority of non-Arabic speaking Muslims read. They came from translations mass produced by the Royal Saudi government, a government which in absolutely no way follows an Islamic ethic.

Furthermore, people need to understand that the verses of the Qur'an were revealed in the 6th century, during a time of persecution, oppression, and apartheid for many religious and ethnic groups, including Muslims. When a verse refers to Jews or Christians, it must be taken in historical sense, at events that were unfolding during that specific time. Also, there is a huge misunderstanding that in the english Qur'an versions the word "Jew" is associated with today's mainstream "Jew". This is not true. The Qur'an refers to Jews as the children of Moses. There are many NON-authentic translated versions that refer to any rival of Islam as a Jew or Christian, which is FALSE and WRONG. These translators (NON-AUTHENTIC ONES), associated the term 'Kafir', which means 'disbeliever', with almost anyone who wasn't a Muslim. These are facts that make it apparent how many people are led to misunderstand verses, and claim they condone violence, etc. However, it is simply not the case. The Qur'an in no way states that it is okay to kill Jews or Christians. This is blatently wrong and goes against every tenent for which Islam stands for. Murder, especially of the innocent, is such a horrific sin in Islam because Islam teaches that only God has the power to create life and take it, and any individual that commits such a great sin is assuming they have the power of God. Actually, the absolute greatest sin which anyone can commit in Islam is called 'shirk', which means associating yourself or other 'things' with or as God. To exemplify this even more, many people have heard the surname "Abdul" being used in Muslim names. The reason this is used is because "Abdul" literally means "slave". If an individual has a name that is comparable with God, such as the name "Jabaar" which means "The Mighty", Abdul is used in conjunction out of respect for God, so the name becomes "Abdul Jabaar" or "slave of the Mighty", which means servant of God.

The Qur'an teaches to embrace other cultures and diversity. It teaches to spread love, peace, and sustain harmony within society. Muslims take it as a guideline to live their life by. It gives them a sense of order, direction, hope, and faith.

Islam is a peaceful religion that condemns murder and taking of innocent lives. What bothers me the most is that less than 0.5% of the Muslim population is involved with these violent acts we see today, terrorism, etc. But still, people make that half percent as a model depiction for every Muslim. Islam in no way condones those actions. Peaceful people would not make their daily greeting, "As-Salaamualaikum", which translates to "may peace be with you".

I hope that individuals would not post such harsh comments, such as YES the Qur'an DOES promote violence, hatred, etc. It is indeed a very delicate topic and such comments are disrespectful. However, if one feels the need to post such things, please attain full knowledge and background first. Don't type in a search in google for "koran and violent verses" and click on the first site that comes up. Please, do some thorough research and read authentic versions.

I hope I have not offended anyone, and if I did, I truly apologize. I just wanted to express my opinion on the matter. I am a Muslim and have extensively studied the Qur'an. Never have I ever came across a verse informing me to kill innocent people. My apologies for this lengthy post.

Good luck to all of you in our medical school pursuit. Best wishes, and "As-Salaamualaikum" (may peace be with you).

UCIgrad2002 ,

Good job

 

[bruinrab]

Originally posted by Slickness
Ok so I looked at the actual Qur'an itself which is online. The following link has 3 translations of it in English, of each verse. They are more or less similar to the previous quotes. I will post 2 verses.

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: 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.

066.009
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed).
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.
SHAKIR: O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be hard against them; and their abode is hell; and evil is the resort.

So I got it straight from the source this time.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

I would say the meaning is similar but the wording is changed to make it more or less harsh.

Gee, I'm glad you picked two verses I'm familliar with.

1. The Arabic word that many choose to translate as "friends" actually is derived from the word for "protector". That verse is meant as a warning to the Prophet not to take non-Muslims as guardians of his affairs in a time of war.

2. Muslims do not assume "unbelievers and hypocrites" to mean Jews and Christians. Those terms as used in Qur'an usually refer to idolators and people who claimed to be Muslim while refusing to comply with the new rules and regulations that Muhammed was espousing.


For a different perspective:

002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the f Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

005.069
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

049.013
YUSUFALI: O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
PICKTHAL: O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.
SHAKIR: O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.

 

[Rendar5]

slickness, I have seen some of those sections you posted, but if you examine them in their context (read 5 lines before and 5 lines after), usually they make more snese and don't mean "oh, just go out and kill those guys cause they suck"

 

[Adapt]

Fair enough.

From the OP, the interviewer had said the Qu'ran is violent. I am not sure that is the case, but I posted verses that may have led the interviewer to this conclusion. As bruinrab said, the English translation may be off.

It is true that you should see them as in context to get the whole meaning.

 

[essbe]

Originally posted by bruinrab
2. Muslims do not assume "unbelievers and hypocrites" to mean Jews and Christians. Those terms as used in Qur'an usually refer to idolators and people who claimed to be Muslim while refusing to comply with the new rules and regulations that Muhammed was espousing.

I've been told that Muslim interfaith marriages to Jews and Christians are generally permissible, too (although not encouraged).

 

[bruinrab]

Originally posted by essbe
I've been told that Muslim interfaith marriages to Jews and Christians are generally permissible, too (although not encouraged).

Muslims believe that the children take the religion of the father. Therefore, Muslim men are allowed to marry "people of the book" (Jews, Christians, and, depending on who you ask, some others). However, a Muslim woman must marry a man who has said the shahada (profession of faith), to ensure that their children are considered Muslim. Basically, the guy has to affirm that he believes in a single God and that Muhammed was God's messenger. Whether or not he becomes a practicing Muslim depends entirely on him at that point.

 

[kito]

A very smart person once told me that it is ill advised to discuss religion and politics with anyone. These are two very sensitive and flammable issues.

 

[khan786]

agree 100%

 

[DD214_DOC]

DEISM

 

[cooldreams]

Slickness,

Where are you citing these verses from? I haven't seen one specific reference in any of your posts. What chapters and verses are you getting these quotes from? What translation are you getting them from? If you are getting it from an English traslation that will be very problematice since very few accurate English translations of the Koran exist. Unless you can read in ancient Arabic or possess the English translation by Muhammad Asad (Brit journalist who spent 15 years living in Saudi Arabia and learning Arabic), I am very skeptical about the quality and integrity of your quotes.


theprizefighter

well, ah... for all of you ppl who think mulims are told to be peaceful by the qu'ran, please read the following. also note, i am not saying that all muslims are violent, just the ones who closely following its teachings. bold statement eh?? i can defend this. so before you go flaming me, attack what i am saying. PLEASE attack what i am saying here, for if you can honestly defend it, then you have come a long way and may yet teach ME something.

please read... also note the referenced scripture locations, and at the end a html link to an online quran that is maintained by muslims... PLEASE READ:

Torment to Non-believers:
4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.


Islam Acceptable:
3.85: And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

No friends from outsiders
3.118: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.

Friends with Jews, Christians
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.

No friends with non believers
4.144: O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?

No friends with non believers
3.28: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

No friends with parents/siblings if not believers
9.23: O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust.

Fight non-believers
9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Kill non-believers
4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

INTERESTING HOW THE QURAN SEES BLACK PEOPLE:
Black Muslim movement founded by a bi-racial man
Elijah Poole, son of a Baptist minister, hooked up in 1931 with Wallace D. Fard who was apparently a bi-racial man and religious teacher. Black Muslims call him "Master Fard Muhammad". Fard told his followers to dress like Arab Muslims did in the Middle East (you see Wallace D. Fard sold African clothing so of course, he sold them the clothing). Poole renounced the Christian faith and his birth name. Fard gave him the name Karriem.

The Hadith calls Muhammad was a white man, so Black Muslims serve the one they speak against. Meanwhile, the Hadith calls black people "raisin heads" (vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256) and refers to them as slaves. If someone dreamed of a black woman, she was an evil omen of disease (vol. 9, nos. 162, 163). Muhammad had black slaves (vol. 6, no. 435). Yet and still Louis Farrakan and his followers will tell us Christianity is the white man's religion. Jesus came for all regardless of color.

ONLINE QURAN ---> http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

 

[cooldreams]

A very smart person once told me that it is ill advised to discuss religion and politics with anyone. These are two very sensitive and flammable issues.

that is the problem with society today... people are scared to discuss these issues... and they are so outrageous because:

1) they are very important and play a huge roll in people's lives everyday
2) they are not honestly talked about, so people feel weird talking about it...

 

[gone_fishin]

I think there is a key point that needs to be made in order to give some perspective on this issue?

Primarily, the verses of the Qur?an need to be taken in context. By context, I do NOT mean in terms of the surrounding verses or the specific chapter. What is critical is that the context in terms of time, place, and situation be considered. Let me elaborate: The Qur?an was not revealed as one united body of text; rather, verses were revealed in response to events on the ground. Thus, it is essential to understand that revelation of the Qur?an was dynamic.

Let us take an example, and I will choose a verse that is probably the most disturbing to some in order to illustrate this point. The verse:

[4.89]They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

To understand this, it is necessary to understand the context of this verse?s revelation. The Muslims, prior to this verse?s revelation, had fled from the theft, stoning, and killing that they faced in Mecca by the tribe of Quraysh, who ?wished that ye should reject Faith?. Furthermore, their caravans were continually attacked as they made their way towards Medina. A number of people had asked the Prophet Muhammad to allow them to fight back against those who had committed these acts from the tribe of Quraysh (up to that point, he had not allowed the Muslims to fight back). Their desperation to protect their lives and livelihood came to a climax when the future caliph Omar pleaded with the Prophet to allow them to take arms. The verse was then soon revealed to the Prophet, allowing them to respond physically to the attacks they faced from Quraysh. They were thus allowed to fight only after being attacked themselves.

Such verses in the Qur?an which call for a certain action (give to them, fight them, aid them, etc.) are appropriately entitled ?verses of action?. There are two types in the Qur?an: those which apply universally (ie; fast as those previous to you were ordered, do not take partners with your lord, etc.) and those which were targeted at the Muslims at the time of revelation in terms of the circumstances that were on the ground, which includes the verse discussed above. Thus, since the death of the Prophet, a whole branch of Islamic Science has produced volumes upon volumes of texts which incorporate Hadith (prophetic sayings and traditions), time, place, and historical socio-economic context. It is essential to realize that the verses that Qur?an is not specific in terms of demanding practices from the adherents of Islam (ie; while the Qur?an clearly instructs its adherent to pray, it does not explicitly say pray five times a day). Rather, the specifics of application of the tenants of the Qur?an must be drawn from the Prophetic tradition and practices, which are unbelievably thourough.

A QUICK NOTE: While I focused on the historical context above, the literal context also sheds a great deal of light on the verse. Take a look at the next verse:

[4.90] Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

Sorry for such a long post!!!...but I think this point is critical for any constructive discussion of verses. I hope this sheds a little light on the subject.

 

[4 Ever]

i know of a few students attending GW and their views parallel what the OP has mentioned. It isn't really anti-islamic views that these students have, its more that they have so much pride in their own religion, they feel that other religions just have it all wrong. It's one reason why I pulled my application from GW (that and the money )

I know not all or even most GW students are like that, but when I know of at least 5 (and their many friends) who share their same views, it makes one wonder

 

[cooldreams]

I think there is a key point that needs to be made in order to give some perspective on this issue?

Primarily, the verses of the Qur?an need to be taken in context. By context, I do NOT mean in terms of the surrounding verses or the specific chapter. What is critical is that the context in terms of time, place, and situation be considered. Let me elaborate: The Qur?an was not revealed as one united body of text; rather, verses were revealed in response to events on the ground. Thus, it is essential to understand that revelation of the Qur?an was dynamic.

Let us take an example, and I will choose a verse that is probably the most disturbing to some in order to illustrate this point. The verse:

[4.89]They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

To understand this, it is necessary to understand the context of this verse?s revelation. The Muslims, prior to this verse?s revelation, had fled from the theft, stoning, and killing that they faced in Mecca by the tribe of Quraysh, who ?wished that ye should reject Faith?. Furthermore, their caravans were continually attacked as they made their way towards Medina. A number of people had asked the Prophet Muhammad to allow them to fight back against those who had committed these acts from the tribe of Quraysh (up to that point, he had not allowed the Muslims to fight back). Their desperation to protect their lives and livelihood came to a climax when the future caliph Omar pleaded with the Prophet to allow them to take arms. The verse was then soon revealed to the Prophet, allowing them to respond physically to the attacks they faced from Quraysh. They were thus allowed to fight only after being attacked themselves.

Such verses in the Qur?an which call for a certain action (give to them, fight them, aid them, etc.) are appropriately entitled ?verses of action?. There are two types in the Qur?an: those which apply universally (ie; fast as those previous to you were ordered, do not take partners with your lord, etc.) and those which were targeted at the Muslims at the time of revelation in terms of the circumstances that were on the ground, which includes the verse discussed above. Thus, since the death of the Prophet, a whole branch of Islamic Science has produced volumes upon volumes of texts which incorporate Hadith (prophetic sayings and traditions), time, place, and historical socio-economic context. It is essential to realize that the verses that Qur?an is not specific in terms of demanding practices from the adherents of Islam (ie; while the Qur?an clearly instructs its adherent to pray, it does not explicitly say pray five times a day). Rather, the specifics of application of the tenants of the Qur?an must be drawn from the Prophetic tradition and practices, which are unbelievably thourough.

A QUICK NOTE: While I focused on the historical context above, the literal context also sheds a great deal of light on the verse. Take a look at the next verse:

[4.90] Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

Sorry for such a long post!!!...but I think this point is critical for any constructive discussion of verses. I hope this sheds a little light on the subject.

most of the verses i quoted are single verses that are not pulled out of any context....

but to your main point of looking at that text and having knowledge of the history of it... are you saying that it is nessesary to ignore much of it??

 

[4 Ever]

well then cooldreams, if i may be as bold as you, i think that Christians can be total hypocrits then as well. Christianity believes in loving everyone and forgiving but yet all those who do not accept christ are just slated to enter hell forever. Even moreso, how can a God who is stated to be all loving then just condemn people to eternal damnation. Aside from that, the bible itself contains many contradictions as do many other religious texts. Also, realize that throughout time, many people have committed heinous crimes to humanity in the name of God - christians included so don't just point out one religion and focus on its bad sides unless you're working for the Fox news

And just as you stated, I do not believe that christians are hypocrits and murderers, just those that closely follow the teachings of the Bible

 

[bruinrab]

Cooldreams,

I suppose Christian literalists somehow forget to read the violent parts of the Bible.

Literalist reading of ANY scripture is bad, bad, bad. Don't discriminate, condemn your Christian brothers and sisters for doing the same thing.

 

[cooldreams]

well then cooldreams, if i may be as bold as you, i think that Christians can be total hypocrits then as well. Christianity believes in loving everyone and forgiving but yet all those who do not accept christ are just slated to enter hell forever. Even moreso, how can a God who is stated to be all loving then just condemn people to eternal damnation. Aside from that, the bible itself contains many contradictions as do many other religious texts. Also, realize that throughout time, many people have committed heinous crimes to humanity in the name of God - christians included so don't just point out one religion and focus on its bad sides unless you're working for the Fox news

And just as you stated, I do not believe that christians are hypocrits and murderers, just those that closely follow the teachings of the Bible

hehe alright!! im getting somewhere... you have now shifted focus from the original topic and instead of defending your faith, you are attacking mine. if this is how you would like to proceed, then i encourage it because i am far more versed in this area than the former...

now to answer your arguement:

1) "Christianity believes in loving everyone and forgiving but yet all those who do not accept christ are just slated to enter hell forever. "

this seems to be a comon cry against christianity in general, but it is actually not true at all. God has given us choice. that in and of itself should just blow your mind if you think about it and accept it. beyond choice, there is really very little we can do/control...

in terms of heaven/hell... there is no number of things you can do to get to heaven. you could be the nicest person or helped the most ppl, but if you do not accept God, if you choice to live life the way you want to, you are not going to heaven. its as simple as that.

now you could also argue with circumstances with ppl who have never known Jesus. how could they go to heaven if that is the set stage to allow for choice in determining your spiritual fate?? its pretty easy, the bible says that God will not be unknown to us. meaning that He will introduce Himself in such a way that a choice will be made. wether or not you have ever spoken to a priest, etc doesnt matter.

getting back to the main point, heaven or hell with an all loving/forgiving God, with this choice that you are given, you are to chose heaven or hell. seriously, ask some ppl, like an athiest or something, ask even if they were standing face to face with God, and could see clearly that He exists, would they still chose to deny God or chose to accept God? you will be surprised... the situation is that hell is an existance without God. they have chosen not to accept God so they are given what they wanted and that is existance without Him - hell.

2) "Aside from that, the bible itself contains many contradictions as do many other religious texts. "

ok... name just one. yes, i ask just one because i already know there to be no contradictions....


3) "Also, realize that throughout time, many people have committed heinous crimes to humanity in the name of God - christians included so don't just point out one religion and focus on its bad sides unless you're working for the Fox news"

haha, aside from Fox news, i think you will agree that someone doing something - anything in the name of anything doesnt nessesarily mean that that someone is following in line as that someone should like that something says they should...

4) "And just as you stated, I do not believe that christians are hypocrits and murderers, just those that closely follow the teachings of the Bible"

ah... we are each entitled to our opinions... some are just able to back theirs up... and others change the subject... right??

 

[bruinrab]

2) "Aside from that, the bible itself contains many contradictions as do many other religious texts. "

ok... name just one. yes, i ask just one because i already know there to be no contradictions....

Ahem...

Abraham had one son:
Heb.11:17
"By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son."
Gen.22:2
"Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering."

Abraham had many sons:
Gen.16:15
"And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael."
Gen.21:2-3
"For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac."
Gen.25:1-2
"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah."


After Jesus' birth, they went to Egypt:
Mt.2:14
"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt."

After Jesus' birth, they went to Nazereth:
Lk.2:39
"And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

 

[cooldreams]

i sincerely hope that this may help you, as it appears that you have quote the famous 101 contradictions...

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

http://www.communityfirst.cc/chris/documents/contradictions/003.html

 

[bruinrab]

Nope, got it from the Skeptics' Annotated Bible. However, I think you missed the point. I don't particularly care whether or not there are contradictions in the Bible. What I do care about is:

1. People who assume that their revelation is "correct" and therefore all others are somehow less valid.

2. People who apply one standard of debate to judge the "other side" while refusing to apply the same standard to their own position.

 

[cooldreams]

Nope, got it from the Skeptics' Annotated Bible. However, I think you missed the point. I don't particularly care whether or not there are contradictions in the Bible. What I do care about is:

1. People who assume that their revelation is "correct" and therefore all others are somehow less valid.

2. People who apply one standard of debate to judge the "other side" while refusing to apply the same standard to their own position.

ah but there you go... the bible says that Gods law will never be outdated. the laws that were instated then still apply today. they have not changed. that is why i asked the SAME of the qu'ran, of which you said no longer apply....

and i KNOW christianity is correct. no assumptions hehe

 

[bruinrab]

ah but there you go... the bible says that Gods law will never be outdated. the laws that were instated then still apply today. they have not changed. that is why i asked the SAME of the qu'ran, of which you said no longer apply....

and i KNOW christianity is correct. no assumptions hehe

You mean these laws?

http://www.thehumorarchives.com/humor/0001065.html

"Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that (Leviticus 18:22) clearly states it to be an abomination.

End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in (Exodus 21:7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. (Lev. 25:44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. (Lev. 21:20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by (Lev.19:27). How should they die?

9. I know from (Lev.11:6-8) that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates (Lev. 19:19) by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan, Jim"

 

[omarsaleh66]

hi i wanted to clarify some things about islam

Quran is a violent book, but the violence that it talks about is due to the fact that those revelations came down in the context of war. Some of the verses dealing with fighting jews pertain to the battle the Muslims and Jews had in Medinah when there was a breach in alliance between the Jews and Muslims. That was one scenario, it doesnt mean to kill any jews or something hateful like that.

Do not take Christians, Jews for "Friends" this word is walid. The better translation is "leader." Islam is a theocracy. It means in an Islamic State the leader should be Muslim, not another religion. This only pertains to an Islamic state, if the muslims live in a nonIslamic state, then they should follow the laws of that land.

Muslims can marry Christians and Jews and other religions that believe in one God so i think it makes no sense to kill ur wife.

Also I want to add that the "Unbeliever" context mosly refers to the pagans of Mecca who were persecuting Muslims and these were the people the Muslims had the most struggles with. Moreover, I want to add that the Christian king of Ethiopia gave the Muslims refuge and Islam might not be where it is today if it had not been for the Christians.

Also, Muhammad had Christians come and pray at the Mosque, and it was common that the Christians leaders (Jerusalem) offered there churches for Muslims to pray in.
So i hope this clarifies that the Quran doesnt promote senseless killing of Christains, Jews, The violent context of the book is actaully talking about specific events that took place.

The intent of this post even though there have been conflicts between cultures, the religions always respected each other and if people actually study there religion and other religions they could see that the prophets and leaders that they adhere to were quite different from the "chaos" that is happening today

 

[gone_fishin]

most of the verses i quoted are single verses that are not pulled out of any context....

but to your main point of looking at that text and having knowledge of the history of it... are you saying that it is nessesary to ignore much of it??

The point I was trying to make was that the Qur'an differs from other religious texts which you may be more familiar with. The structure and format differs entirely from the scriptures of other religious traditions. An individual can read the text of the Qur'an and take a great deal from it in a personal regard, especially in terms of the numerous parables throughout the Qur'an. But the implementation and carrying out of theological duties necessitates a much more throurough look, which is beyond the scope of a quick glance.
Furthermore, When I said verses were pulled out of context, I did not mean the literary context (although the one I discussed is more straighforward if the following verse is considered), a point I tried to harp on in the beginning. The context I discussed is the time, place, and history of revelation.

I hope this clears up some confusion.

 

[4 Ever]

first off, I wasnt defending my faith (another assumption you have made along with the Qu'ran being hate filled). So lets see just how versed you are.

"1. God has given us choice. that in and of itself should just blow your mind if you think about it and accept it. beyond choice, there is really very little we can do/control... "

Gimme a break - We do NOT have the freedom to choose. When God says "okay you are free to choose, but you HAVE to choose me, otherwise you're going to hell" hes not giving us a choice... just appearing to do so.

"in terms of heaven/hell... there is no number of things you can do to get to heaven. you could be the nicest person or helped the most ppl, but if you do not accept God, if you choice to live life the way you want to, you are not going to heaven. its as simple as that. "

Thanks for just regurgitating the bible. Though by God, you only mean Jesus so lets not pretend you are catering to any religion aside from Christianity. Here you have not proven anything - just merely stating your belief. So if you accept Jesus, but you're a child rapist, murderer, thief, etc., you'll go to heaven versus one who has spent their life devoted to helping humanity - yeah such a fair, loving god

"now you could also argue with circumstances with ppl who have never known Jesus. how could they go to heaven if that is the set stage to allow for choice in determining your spiritual fate?? its pretty easy, the bible says that God will not be unknown to us. meaning that He will introduce Himself in such a way that a choice will be made. wether or not you have ever spoken to a priest, etc doesnt matter. "

- thats another load of crock right there. no basis for any sort of argument. Once again, just regurgitation. If i wanted to read the bible again, I'd do it - not have it thrown back at me (btw, all this is quite scripted - heard it plenty of devout christians)


2) "Aside from that, the bible itself contains many contradictions as do many other religious texts. "

ok... name just one. yes, i ask just one because i already know there to be no contradictions....

Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)


haha, aside from Fox news, i think you will agree that someone doing something - anything in the name of anything doesnt nessesarily mean that that someone is following in line as that someone should like that something says they should...

where did you learn how to write? someone/something/someone/someone/something/someone.... all referring to different things. None of that made any sense. Though your point there can be deciphered, im not even going to bother

"ah... we are each entitled to our opinions... some are just able to back theirs up... and others change the subject... right??"

I dont remember changing the subject regarding your anti-islamic views. I just merely stated you should examine your own views before you go joining the christian crusade against muslims. Also, lets examine how hard-core christians (such as the KKK) use the bible to justify their actions. So if I do exactly what you are doing, i would assume that all christians who follow the bible strictly are crazy hate mongers

My point in all this is that you need to stop judging other religions by the actions of a few. There are bad apples in every religion and you should understand that. No religion is above the radical fanatics so if you're going to point at one, look at your own before you do so

 

[bigbaubdi]

I received a response from GW recently regarding the interview I had there...

Here is the response:

"I am saddened not only that you will not be with us, but the reason for your decision. Please be assured that we pride ourselves on the diversity of the student body, patient diversity, diversity of experience, and the various cultural offerings of the Nation's capital.

We spend a great deal of time training and updating interviewers and will continue to do so."