70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[Lurker]

in my understanding, the teachings of Jainism and Buddhism rank as first and second on the "non-aggression rankings chart", with islam/christianity/hinduism/sikhism coming in at equal third, with Judaism bringing up the rear amongst established world religions. again this based not on actual body counts - which are impossible to quantiify - but rather on the major religious scriptures for each faith.

I would agree that Jains and Buddhist would be top ranked philosphies but Hinduism & Sikhism lumped with Islam and Christianity?? You have got to be kidding me. Let me explain this from a cricketing perspective(since this is a cricket board first of all). The greatness of a player does not lie in when he has everything going for him, but when odds are stacked against him. This is what differentiates a SRT, a Dravid from say a Jayawardhne(for example). If you look at followers outside their own nation of origin, thereby their comfort zone, you will see that Eastern religion(you can also add Taoism and Mandarins alongside Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists etc), have no problem assimilating with local cultures(say in US/UK/Europe). Part of this is cultural but part of it is also religious. There is nothing that excludes a Hindu from non-Hindus. On the other hand Muslims do land into that problem. Part of the reason is religion. You can not expect to have (for example) your own butchering shops for halaal meats. Who do you think will have more of a chance assimilating? A Hindu who does not care about where he eats, or a Muslim who looks for only Halaal McDonalds? And who do you think would be marginalized more over a period of time...and hence pushed into a corner of violence?? I do differentiate between Indian Muslims with say british muslims. Clearly Indian Muslims are much moderate and also assimilative, still it would be wrong to say they all are, just like its wrong to say all Hindus are too. I would put Eastern philosphies on rank 1(you can subdivide into which comes first), Abrhaminical religion, all of them, would form the later rung. xxx

[Kriterion]

I would agree that Jains and Buddhist would be top ranked philosphies but Hinduism & Sikhism lumped with Islam and Christianity?? You have got to be kidding me. Let me explain this from a cricketing perspective(since this is a cricket board first of all). The greatness of a player does not lie in when he has everything going for him, but when odds are stacked against him. This is what differentiates a SRT, a Dravid from say a Jayawardhne(for example). If you look at followers outside their own nation of origin, thereby their comfort zone, you will see that Eastern religion(you can also add Taoism and Mandarins alongside Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists etc), have no problem assimilating with local cultures(say in US/UK/Europe). Part of this is cultural but part of it is also religious. There is nothing that excludes a Hindu from non-Hindus. On the other hand Muslims do land into that problem. Part of the reason is religion. You can not expect to have (for example) your own butchering shops for halaal meats. Who do you think will have more of a chance assimilating? A Hindu who does not care about where he eats, or a Muslim who looks for only Halaal McDonalds? And who do you think would be marginalized more over a period of time...and hence pushed into a corner of violence?? I do differentiate between Indian Muslims with say british muslims. Clearly Indian Muslims are much moderate and also assimilative, still it would be wrong to say they all are, just like its wrong to say all Hindus are too. I would put Eastern philosphies on rank 1(you can subdivide into which comes first), Abrhaminical religion, all of them, would form the later rung. xxx

"assimilating with local cultures" is a very broad thing and cannot be summarily spoken about. for example, one of my friends, tejus, is a very "white-washed" desi. his fb profile says "Hindu" under religion, and so i asked him one day while he was scarfing down a hamburger, "tejus, do you eat beef?" to which he replied with a cheeky grin "almost exclusively". however, i also knew several gujaratis (including a brahim) and none of them ever TOUCHED meat. in fact, as i was then the MSA president, i made sure to buy veggie hotdogs for our cook-out when i invited them over. so, all other things being equal, how do you measure the level of assimiliation between an American muslim who eats meat, but doesn't drink alcohol and an American hindu who doesn't eat meat, but drinks? and both of these groups are the stereotyped and large majority of their respective communities. now of course, the answer to this question also encompasses other aspects of hinduism/islam and the degree to which their followers abide by those aspects (dating, dress code, etc).

[Kriterion]

Hinduism and its offshoots have never used weapons or other aggresive means to propagate their faiths ... this is where your ranking of Islam and Christianity with Hinduism falls apart.

which is why i chose my words carefully, although perhaps a clarification should be made (see below). i was comparing religious texts, because that is easiest to do, is best representative of the religion, and is what the real debate is about. as for clarity's sake, are we discussing religion (the ideology) or its followers (people who think, speak, and act accordingly)? if we're talking religions (i.e scripture) then i highly doubt my ranking is flawed. if we're talking followers, i have no clue, because a extensive list of who killed who, for what stated reason, spanning the last 5000 years simply doesn't exist - although we can create an aproximation perhaps. but then we get into the question of whether the actions of people should determine the teachings of their religion and which subsets of people (liberal, moderate, conservative, and extremist) do we take out of the continuum to represent that entire continuum.

[Kriterion]

Dharmic faiths have delivered for over 2500 yrs when it comes to spirituality , peace and such things. Right from Gautam Buddha, Samrat Ashok to Mahatma Gandhi ... no other non-dharmic faiths can lay claim to such lofty high standards when it comes to non-violence. They are the true masters of spirituality. If you think dharmic faiths cant deliver then we might as well pack up and wait for the end of days.

this is intriguing because it would seem that, while praising this "turn the other cheek" philosophy here, you nevertheless hold it responsible for the current situation as "pussalimity" and disagree with it vehemently as something others are mistakenly "proud of". perhaps there are specifics which i am unaware of, but this seems to be an open contradiction in terms.

[Kriterion]

even going by religious texts there is no Hindu scripture equivalent for say the ones that tell you what to do with the Kaffirs. There is simply no concept of conversion in Hinduism.

i disagree. the quran is quite repetitive in its teachings, and one of those is that warfare should only be waged if someone is attacked first, or in the defense of those who are unable to defend themselves. there isn't a sinlge verse which calls for the conversion of non-muslims, but rather for inivitation. the word dawa means to invite, not to convert, even willingly. islam was merely a message to be delivered. whether the package is accepted or not is up to the recepient. just FedEx is not responsible for the delivery man's actions, Islam as a religion has nothing to do with Aurangzeb or Timur, or even Umar's wars of conquest. this corresponds rather congruently to Krishna's words of wisdom to Arjuna, of which the most cogent point is that one should not be worried of "killing" in self defense because the soul lives forever and can never die or be killed. this concept is not unique to the Gita but is echoed in practically every religion which believes in existence beyond the grave or funeral pyre.

It does exist for atleast about 2500 yrs which is more than the age of of Islam itself. The pacifist nature of Hinduism has given a good account of itself even while being under severe pressure from Islam for many many centuries. Kashmir is a shining example right infront of your eyes.

kashmir is an example of hindus fighting for self defense as mandated by every religion with the exception of jainism and buddhism (and perhaps christianity). there isn't a single religion that calls for offensive war without provocation except for the books of Deuternomy, Joshua, et al.

[Kriterion]

Iam not soo ignorant as to not see the beauty of pacifism .... the problem is in who you choose to try it on. It will work fantasticallly when tried against anyone who understands these concepts(and Muslims arent by-and-large ) . And just because the other guy is a human being like me doesnt mean he is capabale of comprehending that sort of ideology and wont try to misuse it.

but thats exactly what all other religions teach as well, isn't it? be friendly with your friends but not with your enemies. in fact, many christians believe in loving one's enemies as well...but there many on this forum who don't hold India's christian communities in Kerala and other places in high regard.

[Kriterion]

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20744 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=21037 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=21668 last time you discussed these you agreed that they were aggressive ... your excuse of quran > tafsir doesnt hold because these are as official as it can get ... and are accepted by majority of the Islamic World

but you still have to differentiate between the tafsir, which is an exegesis and the quran, which is the text being exegesized. they are not one and the same. one is a source (the quran) and the other is an explanation of what that source is talking about. the author of the quran is God, or for argument's sake, Muhammad. the tafsirs were written by many different men at various times in history, including the present day. if i had a degree, i could write my own tafsir, since people are writing them even today! the real issue cannot be with the tafsir, as it is just an ancillary. the quran stands on its own, and is very clear that warfare, or jizya, or whatever is not to be conducted in anything but a defensive manner i.e muslims aren't allowed to "declare" war, but are obligated to fight when it is declared on them.

[Kriterion]

how do you explain the contents of these texts which are utterly violent and crass when there are multiple sources that say the same thing. And its not just one or two episodes here and there ... its quite literally by the truckloads. Its just preposterous to think that every single source is un-reliable. Contrast this with the Bhagwad geeta (an even better example of violence is the Parashuram Avatar) ... which had the far higher potential to be hijacked by rulers to their advantage. No such thing has ever happened. This in a nutshell tells you how diametrically opposite the two religions are.

once again you're making the mistake of associating a person's actions with an ideology, especially when the actions are oppossite said ideology. let me give you an example: i like internet porn, no, scratch that, i love internet porn...i also claim to be a muslim. my question to you is, does islam therefore encourage the viewing of internet porn? i am not familiar with parashuram, so i'll stick with what i know. the Gita only allows "violence" for self defense...as does the Quran. so its even stevens in my opinion. do you disagree? and again, i don't know of the parashuram, but if it is as you say, even more violent...then it appears as though my revised chart should look like this: jainism > buddhism > islam, christianity, sikhism > hinduism > judaism. do you disagree?

[mhr123]

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20744 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986

Regarding Jizya u need to understand the root word of it .. Jizya means compensation . Now let us see the Tax part ...Zakat and Jizya ... Zakat is needed to pay by the Muslims and Jizya is needed to be paid a Non Muslim. For Muslims Zakat - The Muslims have to pay taxes which is 2.5 percent of their annual income or on Gold jewelery (Zakat Valid on the gold is approximately 85 grams or more ) under the name of "Zakah" to the "Muslim Financial Institute" or the "House of the Muslim Money" (As called Baitul Maal) which all goes to provide welfare to the poor and the needy citizens; from both Muslims and non-Muslims. The poor and the needy (such as the Orphans, Widows and the disabled) from the Muslims are exempt from paying taxes (i.e. Zakat). For Non Muslims Jizya - The non-Muslims have to pay a varrying amount under the name of "Jizyah", depending on their situation, which is taxes that don't go to help poor and needy Muslims, but instead, it goes to the government to (1) Provide protection for them since they are a minority; (2) Provide means for them to practice their religions freely by building Temples or Churches for them. There are many instances where Jizya we returned to Non Muslim when the Army left the State. As Stated above Poor muslims are exempted from Paying Zakat , similarly for the non-Muslims, there are exemptions for the poor, for females and children, for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Btw - Muslims Zakat percentage value is more than Jizya (which is normally a fixed amt.) , so if u have saved 10000 pa u need to pay 250 as Zakat .. if u have saved 100000 u pay 2500 ...if u have saved 1000000 u have to pay 25000 . So Muslims are taxed more ironically. http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=21037 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=21668 Same old Ayat in a different thread .. hmmm.. As I have always mentioned that plz don't pick a verse from a middle of a passage . There is a Verse in Quran which Say "Don't Go near Salah (Prayer)" , if a person takes this ayat and say Quran say don't go near prayer - so I won't go near neither pray... well we have to explain him .. yaar read the complete passage which says "Don't go near prayer , when u are under the influence of intoxicant" Similarly the Ayat doesn't start from here neither ends... u need to see why this verse was reviled .. the place or revelation and the time . As to the fighting, when Prophet pbuh started spreading the Message of Islam to the Arabs, he had to eventually deal with 365 Pagan Arab tribes, 3 Jewish tribes (Bani Qaynuqaa, Bani Al-Natheer, and Bani Quraytha) and some Christian tribes as well. They had to deal with many battles that were imposed upon them. They also had to deal with many betrayals done by other tribes who broke their peace treaties with the Muslims and joined as alliance with other enemy tribes and fought the Muslims. (If u need them I can point few). As u must be familiar with there was a treaty between Muslims and Mushrikins (the most prominent was Treaty of Hudabiya) . Later on Mushrikins they broke the treaty by killing few muslims who were sleeping , this lead to Battle between Muslims and Non Muslims . On the Battle ground this verse was revealed . For Eg. In the battle field Arjun is reluctant to fight his cousins , Dronacharya , Pitama etcs.. later on to lift his spirit Krisha gives his Geeta lessons ... many of Geeta Lessons were meant for a perticular place (War zone) and others are way of life... Similarly here this particular QUranic verse is meant for War Zone .. were a General is lifting the spirit of his soldiers as in front of them they are also facing there cousins , nephews etc... The next verse people conveniently forget.. No were in Geeta , Bible or other religious books tells u what to go with those who repent. In Quran it is mentioned ... if they repent .. forgive them and not only forgive them but to take them to place of safety ..Tell me even a verrry soft hearted general is there he would just say .. leave him... but u rarely find anyone going beyoud it and asking his people to take them to place of safety. Normally people take few verses from here and there and often quote them were they are not meant for .... People hardly find numerous verse of peace in Quran...

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)" "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)" "Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"

[mhr123]

If it is such a noble thing explain this : http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986 why are words like disgraced, humiliated and belittled used to explain Jizya in that tafsir link?

Well these are words given by Ibn Kathir and these words are not part of the Verse mentioned by you... No arabic portion of the verse means Disgraced , humiliated or belittled... I have ibn Jawzi , Tabri and Jalali with me ... only Ibn Kathir used as this heading to explain this verse... So don't blame the verse , blame ibn kathir.

[mhr123]

Is right there in the Quran itself (unless ofcourse all 3 of the translators got it wrong ) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029

You need to understand the way new muslims were treated specially the slaves ... most of those who accepted the religion were Salves and low ranks among the tribes... the few who accepted Islam among the nobles were Abu Bakr ,Usman , Kadijah.. later on came Umar. The Salves were mostly blacks and few whites were always looked upon .. to name few Bilal ibn Ribah , Abu Fakih ,Ammar ibn Yasir , Abu Fuhayra .. these were the slaves who were purchased from there Master and later freed by Abu Bakr... they were humiliated and treated lower than animals and were always called upon to submit to there master. When Islamic State was made those who called themselves as masters, ill treated there slaves , ruled there slaves are now themselves paying tax ,seeing there previous slaves who are free who can have eye to eye contact with there previous master was certainly a humiliation to them.

[Lurker]

"assimilating with local cultures" is a very broad thing and cannot be summarily spoken about. for example, one of my friends, tejus, is a very "white-washed" desi. his fb profile says "Hindu" under religion, and so i asked him one day while he was scarfing down a hamburger, "tejus, do you eat beef?" to which he replied with a cheeky grin "almost exclusively". however, i also knew several gujaratis (including a brahim) and none of them ever TOUCHED meat. in fact, as i was then the MSA president, i made sure to buy veggie hotdogs for our cook-out when i invited them over. so, all other things being equal, how do you measure the level of assimiliation between an American muslim who eats meat, but doesn't drink alcohol and an American hindu who doesn't eat meat, but drinks? and both of these groups are the stereotyped and large majority of their respective communities. now of course, the answer to this question also encompasses other aspects of hinduism/islam and the degree to which their followers abide by those aspects (dating, dress code, etc).

Actually you are almost exclusively proving my point there. You see Hindu eating habits is very diverse. In Bihar, where I hail from, we dont eat beef but eat chicken/egg/fish/mutton without battling eyelid. In Madhya Pradesh typically Hindus dont eat any non-veg food and are mostly vegetarian. Same with Gujratis. However in South India, as also North East, and East, Hindus eat beef. The reason for this diversity is rather simple - There is no written down text that suggests do's and dont's. Hence eating habit is more cultural than religious. Sure there are tons of excellent literature down to Upnishads, Purans, Geeta and Mahabharta but there is no fundamental text that says I as a Hindu have to do this, go to the temple on xyz days, eat this, eat meat this way etc. This in turn means there is more fludity and less rigidity. You can extrapolate that to Islam and see how there are absolute rules of do's and dont's - thereby rendering humans into those who follow Islam and those who dont. Such fundamentalism does not exists in Eastern philosphies (and not merely Hinduism) really. xxx

[Kriterion]

It is a commentary allbeit a widely acknowledged one amongst Islamic scholars... and we are not talking about any John Doe mufassir .. its Ibn Kathir .. widely acknowledged as the most authoritative mufassir. The very fact that Quran needs a tafsir to understand the context tells you all you need to know about the claim that it was delivered by God.

this is mostly incorrect, in terms of your argument, it is completely incorrect. allow me to explain. the quran can roughly be divided into two parts: the meccan revelations dealing with aqeedah (the so called "tolerant" verses, according to islamophobic conventions) and the medina revelations dealing with ahkam (the "violent" verses dealing with law and order). by and large, the verses dealing with qisas al anbiya - stories of the prophets - rely heavily on tafsir for elaboration. the quran contains many of the same stories as the old testament, but is much more concise and merely gives a generalized plot summary + the punch line of that story. the only exception being surah 12, recounting the story of Joseph in Egypt. i am sure you don't have bones to pick with these meccan revelations highlighting Joseph's trials and tribulations in Egypt. you have issues with medina verses particularily those dealing with warfare. but the medina verses, are called medina verses, for the fact that they occured after the hijra flight of muslims from mecca to to the city of yathrib. now, regardless of what secular historians and academics say - and they do attest to this, even the islamophobes do - the medina verses are a reference to this situation. there are far too many specifics contained in these verses (references to "sacred months", references to the battle of the trench, references to broken treaties) that make it OBVIOUS to any thinking individual that the context for warfare is only defensive, and can be repeated anywhere in space or time, so long as it is never for offensive purposes. of course, the operative factor here is that the individual must be a thinking critically. in fact, the quran - contrary to popular notion - exhorts believers and disbelievers alike to think, think, and think [Quran 6:50]. according to this website, http://quranicteachings.co.uk/tafakkur.htm, the arabic root word of tafakkur (think), F-K-R, occurs 18 times in the quran.

Yes I disagree .. its a long explanation but the simple fact that No Hindu ruler worth his salt over 2 Millenia has ever hijacked the holy books to suit his agenda. If that doesnt explain it frankly nothing else that I say will.

maybe they haven't hijacked the gita and its justified war, but how about the purusharam (sp)? thats the only way one can explain dramatic fall of the Pala dynasty centered in bengal and spanning over most of present day India going as far west as afghanistan and as far east as burma?

[Kriterion]

Actually you are almost exclusively proving my point there. You see Hindu eating habits is very diverse. In Bihar, where I hail from, we dont eat beef but eat chicken/egg/fish/mutton without battling eyelid. In Madhya Pradesh typically Hindus dont eat any non-veg food and are mostly vegetarian. Same with Gujratis. However in South India, as also North East, and East, Hindus eat beef. The reason for this diversity is rather simple - There is no written down text that suggests do's and dont's. Hence eating habit is more cultural than religious. Sure there are tons of excellent literature down to Upnishads, Purans, Geeta and Mahabharta but there is no fundamental text that says I as a Hindu have to do this, go to the temple on xyz days, eat this, eat meat this way etc. This in turn means there is more fludity and less rigidity. You can extrapolate that to Islam and see how there are absolute rules of do's and dont's - thereby rendering humans into those who follow Islam and those who dont. Such fundamentalism does not exists in Eastern philosphies (and not merely Hinduism) really. xxx

while that may be true...there is much variation in the islamic view of say, halaal meat. the majority of subcontinent (although not so prevelant amongst BD muslims) will eat only halaal meat. however, amongst arabs, the majority of sunni arabs will eat from burger king or domino's regardless of how religious they are. shia muslims of all stripes (arab or subcontinental) will exclusively only eat halaal meat.

[Lurker]

while that may be true...there is much variation in the islamic view of say, halaal meat. the majority of subcontinent (although not so prevelant amongst BD muslims) will eat only halaal meat. however, amongst arabs, the majority of sunni arabs will eat from burger king or domino's regardless of how religious they are. shia muslims of all stripes (arab or subcontinental) will exclusively only eat halaal meat.

I am sure thats true. Islam is one of the world's largest religion and if I am not mistaken there are about 1.5 billion plus Muslims (more than 500 million would be in Indian subcontinent itself). Obviously it would be wrong to treat them as one big monolithic group. However in discussions like this we do have to generalize to some extent or else we would keep moving the goalpost. My whole point was that in Islam free will is not a right as such. By definition Islam means complete submission, and one can not submit completely and yet have an open mind. That, to me, is an obvious fallacy that needs to be looked at by Islamic scholars. Just my opinion, I am no theological scholar to cast aspersions on a religion. xxx

[Kriterion]

The war in defense is simply not true at all .... By the time Mohammad dies most of Arabia was converted to Islam by his Armies ... Dont tell me that it happened without using force. And not all the tribes that ruled these parts had enemity with Mohammad ... its not like the armies would simply walk away if the tribes said no to Islam.

i am not arguing that all Islamic wars are defensive, rather i am arguing that the Quranic concept of war is solely defensive. the reason i say this is that any words or phrase that can be constured either literally or figuratively as "offensive war" simply don't exist in the quran. thats all i am saying, nothing more, and certainly not anything less. for some reason, you seem to keep connecting the actions of people to the teachings of religion in a mechanical fashion. religions can't kill people or pull triggers or swing swords, people have to do that.

[Kriterion]

First of all this contextual explanation is used nowhere in any of the major Tafsirs and the Quran itself doesnt say anything even remotely close to what you are saying. The context is clearly explained in the first few verses of that chapter and it is in connection with the Pagan tribes who were deemed to be idolators and dealt with. Mohammad gives them 4 months time to convert to Islam or have a treaty where the terms are pretty much subjugatory. If they chose not to they would be free for the massacre. Iam sure you know all the details.

This is almost completely incorrect. Its as incorrect as stating "the quran demands blind faith without any rational thought and critical thinking." The bottom line is that any text, taken out of context or quoted selectively can say anything. For example look what happens when i selectively quote your last post: rape is fun. Now i'm sure thats not what you said, meant, or believe. Hyperbolic as it is, I hope you get the point. Now lets examine the Quran's stance on war as a whole, starting with Chapter 9, taking it 5 verses at a time: Verses 1-5) Peace treaties with those who broke the terms of the treaty are now over, except those who have not broken the terms. These terms are to be completed. As for the former group of treaty-breakers, they have 4 months (sacred months) to get away from the punishment of breaking the treaty. Verses 6-10) If the treaty breakers seek asylum, grant it. If they abide by their promise, abide by your promise. This applies to people who are only peaceful when they have the weaker hand, but when they have the stronger hand, exploit the advantage. They never respect their obligations with respect to Muslims. Verses 11-15) If they convert to Islam, they are brothers. If they continue to break treaties, fight them to degress their aggression. Muslims cannot attack first. God will remove the wrath from their hearts. Verses 16-20) Only God's servants should tend to mosques. Belief in God and the last day are paramount. Verses 21-25) Do not take fathers/brothers as allies if they are deniers of Truth. God is more important than family and material things. With god's help you are victorious, without it you have tasted defeat. Verses 26-30) God will bestow peace upon on, and wrath upon your [above] enemies. Even still, God can grant mercy to whoever he pleases. Pagans cannot attend the mosque after this year. Fight against the above disbelievers. Verses 31-37) no references to war. Verses 38-72) You must go to war when it is declared upon you, surrender is not an option. Rest mostly highlights the character of hypocrites within islam. Verses 73) Strive against the above disbelievers who attack you first. Verses 74-87) Hypocracy again. Verse 88) Believers struggle in defense of themselves. Verses 89-122) No war references Verses 123-129) Fight the disbelievers, obviously under the guidelines established in the first 30 verses. If the disbelievers turn away then trust in God.

[Kriterion]

Well this is quite opposite to what you initially said i.e that Mohammad waged wars only in self defense

just a clarification: All of Muhammad's wars - as illustrated by the Quran - were self defensive. I used the term "islamic war" more broadly in the sense you speak of them e.g Babur, Timur, Aurangzeb, Umar, Abu Bakr. those were not necessarily defensive, and to the extend they were not, i do not support it, and more importantly neither does the Quran, as you've admitted doesn't contain any offensive verses.

And no there does exist the concept of offensive warfare in Quran.

thank you for realizing this!

the devil is in the detail (or the context ). This is where supportive texts like the tafsirs , hadiths and seerahs come in.

note the word SUPPORTIVE. this means that the Quran trumps the supportive texts each and every time they contradict the quran. remember that the quran was preserved by memory, and due to its brevity (a mere 6000 verses compared to the verbosity of the Bible, Mahabharata, Odyssey, Iliad, and hadeeth) is humanely possible to preserve intact. no such logic works with the hadeeth - on which the tafsir and seerah are based. according to some estiamtes, there are over 700,000 hadeeths in circulation. plenty of room for 10 or even 50 thousand to slip through the cracks without anyone noticing. just to emphasize, the authoritative hadeeth of Bukhari's author, Imam Bukhari wasn't even born until 150 years after Muhammad's death. Ibn Kathir, lived 700 years after Muhammad died. 700 years! the religion of sikhism isn't even that old yet, its like me telling you what Guru Nana ate on Janurary 15, 1504. the seerah of Ibn Ishaq was written also 100 years after Muhammad's death, and isn't even available in its original form today. according to secular historians, it was altered and edited by Ibn Hisham later on.

The amount of violence that is chronicled in those texts is just mind boggling. You can deny all you want but a huge majority of the islamic world does not question those texts and they form as essential reading for the ulema

yes, i agree. fully. but again this cannot be blamed on the Quran or its author Muhammad. what someone does with your ideas after your death is not at all your responsibility especially when its been perverted.

And isint following the Sunnah one of the pillars of Islam ? So why are you concerned when the Taliban (and infact most of the Islamic world) do exactly that?

no, the sunnah is not a pillar of islam. the 5 pillars are decreed by the Quran as belief, prayer, fasting, alms, and hajj. the sunnah is integral only so long as it doesn't violate the tenets of the quran. plenty of "hadeeths" and elements of the tafsir and seerah do just that, which is why a greatly innumerable number of muslims reject them. of course political organizatins such as the taliban have been corrupted by opium and their own personalized agendas. be it land, money, mysogyny, or plain old bigotry. there is more than likely also a genetic component, explaining why ALL religions have liberals, conservatives, and extremists.

[Kriterion]

I did not admit that .. you mis-read what I wrote ... Sorry

you're right, i did misread what you wrote, my apologies.

you need to realize that the Quran in itself is not a complete work and without these supportive text it makes little sense. The book didnt even exist wile Mohammad was around for him to certify it! It was put to paper in the same manner as the Hadeeth- from memory of his followers. I understand your need to do away with the hadeeth but then it opens up another hole someplace else. This is quite typical of any human enterprise based on selling its ideology as Gods work.

it DOES makes perfect sense w/out supplementary texts, provided your approach is logical and sound. quran and hadeeth both reach us through the "memories of his followers". in this regard they are equal. however, the quran is - according to all academic sources - written by Muhammad himself. this is a PRIMARY source. the hadith were authored by various men, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidi, Dawud, etc. on top of that, NONE of those men ever even saw people who saw Muhammad. In other words, the hadith are a SECONDARY source (i.e hearsay or "word of mouth"). if you read the hadith you will see that they all go something like this: "person X narrates that person Y heard Muhammad say such and such..." or "person Z saw Muhammad speaking to so and so..." PRIMARY > SECONDARY an all seven days of the week. as for the seerah (biography of Muhammad), it was also written a good 130+ years after Muhammad, making it at best another SECONDARY source. and the tafsir of ibn kathir was 700 years after muhammad making it an nth degree source. now i am not advocating the wholesale disregard of the tafsir/hadith/seerah. but i am demanding that common sense dictates that a primary source be given the precedence over a secondary source. and this would hold true if we were accusing someone merely of passing gas, and not accusing them of being a terrorist/pedophile/rapist/etc. just imagine how you would feel if someone accused your wife/mother/sister/daughter of a dishonorable act based on the rumor-mill, when there are first-hand accounts proving otherwise. i'd be pissed.

[mhr123]

Well this is quite opposite to what you initially said i.e that Mohammad waged wars only in self defense. And no there does exist the concept of offensive warfare in Quran. the devil is in the detail (or the context ). This is where supportive texts like the tafsirs , hadiths and seerahs come in. The amount of violence that is chronicled in those texts is just mind boggling. You can deny all you want but a huge majority of the islamic world does not question those texts and they form as essential reading for the ulema The logic is pretty simple ... actions speak louder than words. You can write the most pacifist book but its not worth the paper its written on. On this count alone Gautam Buddha and Karamchand Gandhi have a higher and more authentic claim to being true prophets of God. And isint following the Sunnah one of the pillars of Islam ? So why are you concerned when the Taliban (and infact most of the Islamic world) do exactly that?

Wud love to see if u can point few verses... just for my knowledge.. Here are few verses "apke kidmat me ":icflove: Therefore the only war condoned by the Qu'ran is a war of self-defense. "Warfare is an awesome evil" (2:217) And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. (Al-Baqarah 2:190) But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Al-Baqarah 2:192) To the other part of ur text .... Regarding Quran , hadeeth , Tafsir etc...Muslims regard the most reliable Qur'anic commentary as being contained in the Qur'an itself. In other words, the ways in which certain ayat clarify other ayat are regarded as being the most significant form of commentary. A second form of Qur'anic commentary is how the Prophet interpreted the Qur'an. And his comments on the Qur'an (as well as everything he ever said or did) are recorded in the hadith collections. After these two forms of commentary, knowledgeable companions and later generations of pious and learned Muslims expressed their view of the meaning of various ayat. It was on this foundation that the science of Qur'anic commentary was built.