Construction Workers Vow Not to Build NYC Mosque

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I do believe that there is extremism in the Islam, the faith. The Quran is chock full of verses like the few examples I gave. I've never heard an Islamic scholar explain these verses in a way that would satisfy a secular western mind. Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims in the world don't take these verses literally. They couldn't if they wanted to because the only 'real' Quran is written in Arabic, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims don't speak Arabic. They simply learn to recite the verses by sound. As a result, the brand of Islam practiced by most Muslims is relatively benign, and consists mostly of ritual prayer and fasting during Ramadan. They don't mean any harm to me or anyone else.

The ones who are dangerous are the 'scholars' who understand completely what the Quran describes, and take it as a personal command to carry out Allah's work at the point of a sword. If they have enough charisma, like Bin Laden, they can get a lot of people to buy into their jihadist viewpoint, and that's when things get really dangerous. It's never a good sign when charismatic intelligent people think they are getting a personal "call to arms" from the Quran, the Bible, the neighbor's dog, or the Beatle's White Album.

With all due respect, the praise offered to you is undeserved. There are many errors in the above post. To begin with, there is no extremism in Islam, the faith. There is extremism in some Muslims, but it is only those, much like them, lacking knowledge of the Message and Intent of Islam, who make such a claim.

It is also arrogant to define the Quran by posting a few verses out of context and without historical perspective. A text without a context often becomes a pretext, as the old saying goes. The entire Quran is composed of 6,236 verses. You posted 3 of what are known as the "Sword verses”, and now state that the Quran is "chocked full" of similar verses like those. That is simply untrue. In fact, claims that it is is a dead give away that the person making such a statement has no real knowledge of the Quran.

The Quran, like the Bible, chronicles a history of a particular place and time. Each contains violent verses that are only part of the texts and the chronology. In reality, the Bible contains far more violence than the Quran. Serious students of any faith know that verses read in historical and literary contexts make a lot more sense and are a lot less threatening than those posited out of context and presented as the core of the faith.

While the verses were quite literal for the place and time for which they were intended and directed, there is no true context in which most Muslims would need to apply them today. I am an Islamic scholar, although not at all dangerous, but I can very briefly explain the Sword verses.

They are directives regarding the conduct of physical warfare against the local enemies of the early ummah during the Prophet’s time. These battles were more about economics than religion; revelations of a monotheistic faith threatened the financial stability of the merchants who made a living They also explain how to treat captives humanely, and how to know when to stop fighting.

The Sword verses are strictly situational. They are not at all representative of the Message of Islam than violent verses in the Bible, of which there are quite a few, are representative of the Message of Christianity. The Sword verses also do not represent a different "brand" of Islam, distinct from a "benign brand" of Islam. Islam is Islam. It's as simple as that. Some Muslims mirror the faith as it should be, and some don't mirror the faith at all.

The “real” Quran is not bound by language. Each prophet of Islam spoke a different language in which they prayed and taught converts. For example, Jesus (pbuh) spoke Aramaic, Abraham (pbuh) spoke Hebrew, and Muhammad (pbuh) spoke Arabic. The prayers of each were accepted by God, and their teachings were valid in the Word. The notion that the only true language of Islam is Arabic is merely Arab chauvinism.

The proper practice of Islam is not merely about one’s ability to speak Arabic or phonetically reciting sounds by rote. It’s also not just about prayer and fasting. It may be that some people can only know the willful depth of love on a path to God by actually traveling it, but I suspect that others, like me, feel a swell of happiness for anyone who believes in a force greater than themselves in a way that not only makes them want more, but also binds them to others who love God despite the faith they are drawn to. There is nothing dismissively simple, rote or blind about that kid of commitment. It genuinely comes from the heart.

I sincerely advise non-Muslim laymen to cease speculation about Islam and the Quran. It is clear that most posters here know nothing to legitimize the authority with which they post. You can make a choice to learn from valid resources rather than pretend to know the subject matter, and mislead others who know less. The dialogue deserves better than mere pretense.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Amended for clarity:

They are directives regarding the conduct of physical warfare against the local enemies of the early ummah during the Prophet’s time. These battles were more about economics than religion; revelations of a monotheistic faith threatened the financial stability of the merchants who made a good living creating and selling idols and other services to pagan clients. There are also verses to explain how to treat captives humanely, and how to know when to stop fighting.

[Harsh_77 718]

There are always other things to spend money on.

Then why dont set an example of how peaceful and loving islam is, set an example of other human irrespective of their faith, belief or religion.

Unfortunately that never happens, its just followers of islam keep on repeating we are peace loving and there is no room for bloodbath in islam.

[thongd4me 69]

Amended for clarity:

They are directives regarding the conduct of physical warfare against the local enemies of the early ummah during the Prophet's time.

These battles were more about economics than religion; revelations of a monotheistic faith threatened the financial stability of the merchants

who made a good living creating and selling idols and other services to pagan clients.

There are also verses to explain how to treat captives humanely, and how to know when to stop fighting.

Public beheading on the internet in the name of Islam or death by slow torture on the rack in the name of Christianity.

Either way it's religious fanaticism.

Both Islam & Christianity are better than that, but both have have had violence promoted in their name.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Public beheading on the internet in the name of Islam or death by slow torture on the rack in the name of Christianity.

Either way it's religious fanaticism.

Both Islam & Christianity are better than that, but both have have had violence promoted in their name.

I could commit acts of violence in your name, that wouldn't. make you culpable nor fanatical. If people use a faith to cover their bad acts, that doesn't grant them ownership, it doesn't change the faith or the way other adherents practice. It also doesn't redefine the faith. Islam is what it is, and remains what it is, No matter what some Muslims do.

[thongd4me 69]

I could commit acts of violence in your name, that wouldn't. make you culpable nor fanatical. If people use a faith to cover their bad acts, that doesn't grant them ownership, it doesn't change the faith or the way other adherents practice. It also doesn't redefine the faith. Islam is what it is, and remains what it is, No matter what some Muslims do.

I made the same statement you did. I just used fewer words.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

With all due respect, the praise offered to you is undeserved. There are many errors in the above post. To begin with, there is no extremism in Islam, the faith. There is extremism in some Muslims, but it is only those, much like them, lacking knowledge of the Message and Intent of Islam, who make such a claim.

It is also arrogant to define the Quran by posting a few verses out of context and without historical perspective. A text without a context often becomes a pretext, as the old saying goes. The entire Quran is composed of 6,236 verses. You posted 3 of what are known as the "Sword verses”, and now state that the Quran is "chocked full" of similar verses like those. That is simply untrue. In fact, claims that it is is a dead give away that the person making such a statement has no real knowledge of the Quran.

The Quran, like the Bible, chronicles a history of a particular place and time. Each contains violent verses that are only part of the texts and the chronology. In reality, the Bible contains far more violence than the Quran. Serious students of any faith know that verses read in historical and literary contexts make a lot more sense and are a lot less threatening than those posited out of context and presented as the core of the faith.

While the verses were quite literal for the place and time for which they were intended and directed, there is no true context in which most Muslims would need to apply them today. I am an Islamic scholar, although not at all dangerous, but I can very briefly explain the Sword verses.

They are directives regarding the conduct of physical warfare against the local enemies of the early ummah during the Prophet’s time. These battles were more about economics than religion; revelations of a monotheistic faith threatened the financial stability of the merchants who made a living They also explain how to treat captives humanely, and how to know when to stop fighting.

The Sword verses are strictly situational. They are not at all representative of the Message of Islam than violent verses in the Bible, of which there are quite a few, are representative of the Message of Christianity. The Sword verses also do not represent a different "brand" of Islam, distinct from a "benign brand" of Islam. Islam is Islam. It's as simple as that. Some Muslims mirror the faith as it should be, and some don't mirror the faith at all.

The “real” Quran is not bound by language. Each prophet of Islam spoke a different language in which they prayed and taught converts. For example, Jesus (pbuh) spoke Aramaic, Abraham (pbuh) spoke Hebrew, and Muhammad (pbuh) spoke Arabic. The prayers of each were accepted by God, and their teachings were valid in the Word. The notion that the only true language of Islam is Arabic is merely Arab chauvinism.

The proper practice of Islam is not merely about one’s ability to speak Arabic or phonetically reciting sounds by rote. It’s also not just about prayer and fasting. It may be that some people can only know the willful depth of love on a path to God by actually traveling it, but I suspect that others, like me, feel a swell of happiness for anyone who believes in a force greater than themselves in a way that not only makes them want more, but also binds them to others who love God despite the faith they are drawn to. There is nothing dismissively simple, rote or blind about that kid of commitment. It genuinely comes from the heart.

I sincerely advise non-Muslim laymen to cease speculation about Islam and the Quran. It is clear that most posters here know nothing to legitimize the authority with which they post. You can make a choice to learn from valid resources rather than pretend to know the subject matter, and mislead others who know less. The dialogue deserves better than mere pretense.

I have, in fact, read every chapter of the Quran in the four different translations. I prefer Shakir because it's easier to read (without all of the flowery "thee" and "thou" stuff in Yusuf Ali, for example). I haven't read the Arabic original because I don't speak Arabic. I don't pretend to be an Islamic scholar, but I CAN read and understand what I've read. I've heard Muslims say it's ok to study the translations for informational purposes, but any serious study must be done in Arabic. According to Islamic belief, Allah wrote the Quran in Arabic, relayed the verses to Jabreel in Arabic, who relayed the verses to Muhammad in Arabic, who delivered the verses to his followers in Arabic. Any translation or interpretation would not be the word of Allah. Call it Arab chauvinism if you like.

The so-called "sword verses" are the ones that Bin Laden and his ilk use as justification for their jihad. It's impossible to take them out of context because the Quran provides no context for them. This is as opposed to the verses regarding Jesus, Moses, and Abraham, which are clearly historical (though most Christians would argue they are wildly inaccurate). Yes, anyone who knows their history knows that the verses I quoted were delivered immediately after Allah told Muhammad to break off the treaty with the Meccans, but the Quran doesn't explain this in the context of a historical story. These verses were delivered at the time the events were actually happening, and the verses take the form of a command from Allah to all Muslims. Nowhere does the Quran say that these verses are no longer applicable to modern day Muslims. This opens the door for any 'scholar' to use these verses as justification to do just about anything to 'fight in the cause of Allah'. The Bible contains the new testament, which basically absolves Christians from having to follow the violent directives in the old testament. This can't happen in Islam. The Quran declares that Muhammad is the final prophet - there will be no amendments to soften the "sword verses".

Yes, most Muslims believe those commands are situational, but this is based on an interpretation of the meaning, and not a literal reading of the verses. A literal reading of the verses would make it appear that Bin Laden is correct, and there are a great many Muslims who believe as he does. I say there is extremism in Islam because the Quran provides all the justification needed for extremism. I believe the Bible does also, but to a lesser extent. The only religions where you will find no extremism are those that teach there is never a justification for killing.

[thongd4me 69]

I could commit acts of violence in your name, that wouldn't. make you culpable nor fanatical. If people use a faith to cover their bad acts, that doesn't grant them ownership, it doesn't change the faith or the way other adherents practice. It also doesn't redefine the faith. Islam is what it is, and remains what it is, No matter what some Muslims do.

But the peace-loving Muslims can do more...as suggested here:

{From TheAmericanMuslim.Org} Throwing Stones at the Quran

[HAL 9000 96]

I think those of us that are Christians could do more too, like fight against injustice in this country.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You are correct to say that you are not a scholar of Islam, because it shows. You are a literalist who doesnt have the training or skill to apply historical context or any order to what you read. You would make a good terrorist recruit because thats about the top skill that they need to have, if they were more knowlegeable, they wouldnt be terrorists.

Merely reading the Quran does not denote understanding of the context, meaning, or weight of the verses; that is what study is for, As I said before, Islam has many messengers and prophets who learned, prayed and taught in many languages, all of which God understands. God tells us that the Message is protected, so the preference of one language over another is a social contrivance. The Bible wasn't written in English, or Spanish, etc., but is understood in those languages as much as divine revelation can be understood by man. The same is true for the Quran.

I have devoted my life to the study and practice of Islam. It's interesting that there are non-Muslims who not only sincerely believe that they know more about Islam than a practicing student of the faith. Is there no reward in humility and the acceptance that there is so much more to know, and that you could be wrong?

I have, in fact, read every chapter of the Quran in the four different translations. I prefer Shakir because it's easier to read (without all of the flowery "thee" and "thou" stuff in Yusuf Ali, for example). I haven't read the Arabic original because I don't speak Arabic. I don't pretend to be an Islamic scholar, but I CAN read and understand what I've read. I've heard Muslims say it's ok to study the translations for informational purposes, but any serious study must be done in Arabic. According to Islamic belief, Allah wrote the Quran in Arabic, relayed the verses to Jabreel in Arabic, who relayed the verses to Muhammad in Arabic, who delivered the verses to his followers in Arabic. Any translation or interpretation would not be the word of Allah. Call it Arab chauvinism if you like.

The so-called "sword verses" are the ones that Bin Laden and his ilk use as justification for their jihad. It's impossible to take them out of context because the Quran provides no context for them. This is as opposed to the verses regarding Jesus, Moses, and Abraham, which are clearly historical (though most Christians would argue they are wildly inaccurate). Yes, anyone who knows their history knows that the verses I quoted were delivered immediately after Allah told Muhammad to break off the treaty with the Meccans, but the Quran doesn't explain this in the context of a historical story. These verses were delivered at the time the events were actually happening, and the verses take the form of a command from Allah to all Muslims. Nowhere does the Quran say that these verses are no longer applicable to modern day Muslims. This opens the door for any 'scholar' to use these verses as justification to do just about anything to 'fight in the cause of Allah'. The Bible contains the new testament, which basically absolves Christians from having to follow the violent directives in the old testament. This can't happen in Islam. The Quran declares that Muhammad is the final prophet - there will be no amendments to soften the "sword verses".

Yes, most Muslims believe those commands are situational, but this is based on an interpretation of the meaning, and not a literal reading of the verses. A literal reading of the verses would make it appear that Bin Laden is correct, and there are a great many Muslims who believe as he does. I say there is extremism in Islam because the Quran provides all the justification needed for extremism. I believe the Bible does also, but to a lesser extent. The only religions where you will find no extremism are those that teach there is never a justification for killing.

[sandinista! 1,816]

You are correct to say that you are not a scholar of Islam, because it shows. You are a literalist who doesnt have the training or skill to apply historical context or any order to what you read. You would make a good terrorist recruit because thats about the top skill that they need to have, if they were more knowlegeable, they wouldnt be terrorists.

Merely reading the Quran does not denote understanding of the context, meaning, or weight of the verses; that is what study is for, As I said before, Islam has many messengers and prophets who learned, prayed and taught in many languages, all of which God understands. God tells us that the Message is protected, so the preference of one language over another is a social contrivance. The Bible wasn't written in English, or Spanish, etc., but is understood in those languages as much as divine revelation can be understood by man. The same is true for the Quran.

I have devoted my life to the study and practice of Islam. It's interesting that there are non-Muslims who not only sincerely believe that they know more about Islam than a practicing student of the faith. Is there no reward in humility and the acceptance that there is so much more to know, and that you could be wrong?

i think sometimes people who don't know any better think that because there's no religious intermediaries, like the catholic priesthood, etc. in islam, they then turn around and think reading islam's holy book and hadith is one big free-for-all amongst muslims to decide ayat can mean whatever they want it to. you'll come across people who have a cursory understanding of what the quran is, and what it says, and usually an even more superficial knowledge of the ahadith, but the various tafsir are even less known or talked about.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then why dont set an example of how peaceful and loving islam is, set an example of other human irrespective of their faith, belief or religion.

Unfortunately that never happens, its just followers of islam keep on repeating we are peace loving and there is no room for bloodbath in islam.

Who says that Muslims don't donate? You know that the UK public has just sent £30 million in donations to Pakistan? Quite a few Muslims in the UK.

Should everyone scrap planned building projects to give the money to charity? Not exactly realistic is it.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Who says that Muslims don't donate? You know that the UK public has just sent £30 million in donations to Pakistan? Quite a few Muslims in the UK.

Should everyone scrap planned building projects to give the money to charity? Not exactly realistic is it.

i bet harsh ate breakfast or lunch today, maybe even both. but i doubt he would call himself out as being wrong for eating breakfast or lunch because 24,000 people die every day of hunger.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i bet harsh ate breakfast or lunch today, maybe even both. but i doubt he would call himself out as being wrong for eating breakfast or lunch because 24,000 people die every day of hunger.

[Staashi 371]

i think sometimes people who don't know any better think that because there's no religious intermediaries, like the catholic priesthood, etc. in islam, they then turn around and think reading islam's holy book and hadith is one big free-for-all amongst muslims to decide ayat can mean whatever they want it to. you'll come across people who have a cursory understanding of what the quran is, and what it says, and usually an even more superficial knowledge of the ahadith, but the various tafsir are even less known or talked about.

I find this to be very true - and this is what I think Sofiyya is pointing out as well - if you do not understand the historical context at which a certain chapter (forgive my ignorance as to what it is called in the Quran) was written, you could misinterpret the reasoning behind it. Having grown up in Catholic schools all my life does not make me an expert at Canon Law...I'm pretty good at many things, have studied the Bible for years - know it well, but Biblical and religious interpretation is something I deem to leave up to my priests and the hierarchy of the Church.

And one other thing - as to the topic of this thread, I am quite sure that there are laid-off construction workers who would gladly go to NYC and build that mosque. Anyone who thinks that an excellent paying job is something to laugh at or have "morals" over in this day in age is seriously high.