&tRecently, I got an email from a friend who told me about an author who wrote that, for many Muslims, there is no more joy in Islam. I believe that is valid. For many people, there is no "sweetness" of faith, like the Prophet (pbuh) spoke about in a famous hadith. Many people will conclude that this is a fault of religion itself, most especially Islam. Yet that is a faulty conclusion.

Religion is supposed to serve the believer. It is supposed to support the believer on his or her journey on this earth back towards their Lord and Creator, where they truly belong. In fact, religion polishes the roughness out of the human heart so that the light of God both shines through and penetrates in. There should be so much joy in this process.

Yet, for many people, the reverse is true. The believer is supposed to serve religion. Religion is master, and the believer is servant. This is flawed, and the Qur'an tells me so:

Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion. (5:3)

The fact that God gave us the perfect law is described as "the full measure of [God's] blessings." Yet, why? Why is religion an enormous blessing for us? Because it helps guide us back to our Lord. That is the ultimate service for us.

When our father Adam (pbuh) slipped in the Garden, he estranged himself from God. Thus, Adam (pbuh) was bidden to live on earth and journey back to Him. This is a tough journey, and God knows this. Yet, He did not leave Adam (pbuh) - and by analogy all of us - completely alone to fend for himself (and ourselves). He sent guidance:

Yet if guidance does come to you from Me, then whoever follows My guidance will have nothing to fear and will not sorrow. (2:38)

And when we follow this guidance we are comforted, and we find happiness and joy. In fact, God calls the believers to enter into peace, which is what we will find when we follow His way:;blockquote>O believers, enter wholly into peace, and do not follow the footsteps of Satan, for he is an open enemy to you. (2:208)Many translators have used the word "Islam" as the translation for the Arabic silm, which is the word used in the verse. But, silm means "peace," and the use of the word seems to be much more broad and encompassing. This means to me that, if we follow God's way, we will have total peace in our hearts, and we will experience joy.

This process, in fact, is one of love. Following God's way is a process of falling in love with God. We get to know Him through knowing and experiencing His signs:

We will show them Our signs throughout the regions of the earth and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness to all things? (41:53)

And once we know Him, we cannot but love Him, most especially because we come to learn that He loved us first. And once we fall in love with the Precious, there is no turning back. We "enter into peace," and we experience joy. That is the essence of religion: the process of falling in love with God and entering into peace by following His guidance.

And, yes, that does include performing the acts of ritual prayer and ablution; abstaining from that which God commands; giving out of our wealth; fasting when God commands us to fast; journeying on the earth back to the Lord Himself. All these things we do because we love Him (because He loved us first).

The fact that someone does not derive joy from these things is not the fault of the religion, it is the fault of the person himself. Nevertheless, there are many Muslims who have begun to question the 'illah, or effective cause or reason behind, of some of Islam's most important religous practices. For instance, what is the 'illah of the five daily prayers? What is the 'illah of the fast of Ramadan? Of the zakah? Of the Hajj?

I do not think there is anything wrong with this type of questioning, so long as the intent behind the questioning is sincere. Truth does not fear investigation. Yet, God has already answered many of these questions already. The beauty of our Creator is that, when He sends forth a command, He usually explains why. In fact, we see that He gives the 'illah behind our ritual practices:

Five daily prayers: I am the God; there is no deity but Me; so serve Me, and practice prayer to remember Me. (20:14) Also read: Recite what has been revealed to you from the Book, and pray regularly; for prayer restrains from that which is abominable and disavowed. And remembrance of God is even greater. And God knows what you do. (29:45)

Fast of Ramadan: O believers, fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you, that you may be conscientious. (2:183) Also read: The month of Ramadan is the one in which the Qur'an was revealed, as guidance for humanity, and demonstrations in the way of guidance and discrimination. So whoever among you is present in that month should fast... (2:185)

Zakah: Take contributions from their wealth, to purify them and justify them thereby; and pray for them. Indeed, your prayer is an asylum for them. For God is all-hearing, all-knowing. (9:103)

Hajj: Indeed, the first temple set up for humankind was the one at Mecca, as blessing and guidance for all beings, in which are evident signs; it is the place where Abraham stood, and whoever enters it is secure. And it is a duty of humanity to God that whoever is able to make a pilgrimage to the temple. And if any refuse, well, God in independent of all worlds . (3:96-97)

The Lord God has also explained why He forbade fornication and games of chance even though He has no reason to do so:

And do not approach adultery, for it is an obscenity and an evil way. (17:32)

Believers - wine and gambling and idolatry and divination are nothing by abomination from the work of Satan, so avoid them that you may thrive. Satan only wants to sow hostility and hatred among you with wine and gambling, and to hinder you from remembrance of God, and from prayer. So will you refrain? (5:90-91)

Even when it comes to believing in His oneness, He never says, "I am One because I say so." No. He takes the time to explain why, even though He has every right to say "because I said so." Take this passage as a prime example:

Say, Praise be to God, and peace upon the servants God has chosen. Is God better, or what they associate with God? Or, who created the heavens and the earth, and rains water from the sky for you? With it We produce orchards full of beauty, whose trees you could not produce. Is there a deity besides God? No, but they are a deviant people.

Or, who made the earth steady, and put rivers in its clefts, and set mountains on it, and placed a partition between the two seas? Is there a deity besides God? No, but most of them do not know. Or, who answers the cry of the one hard pressed, and removes adversity, and makes you heirs of the earth? Is there a deity besides God? You hardly pay attention.

Or, who guides you in the darkness of the land and the sea, and who sends the winds as heralds of divine mercy? Is there a deity besides God? God transcends any association that they attribute. Or, who initiates creation and then repeats it; and who provides you sustenance from the sky and the earth? Is there a deity besides God? Say, "Bring your proof, if you are being truthful." (27:59-65)

See how God goes through a detailed exposition about why He is one God, even though, once again, He needs no reason to explain Himself to us. What an awesome God we have!

Despite these explanations, however, many Muslims seek to discern even further the 'illah behind the various practices of Islam. On one level, this is good, because upon reflection, one may find infinite reasons and benefits of the ritual practices of Islam. This will serve to strengthen the resolve of the believer to keep up the ritual practices out of love for God.

There are some, however, who reflect upon the possible 'illah of the ritual practice in order to invent "designer Islam," to justify their abandonment of the ritual practices. This is quite dangerous.

Thus, a person may say: "The ritual prayer is really a conversation between the believer and his or her Lord." This is true. Consequently, the person concludes, since he or she "talks" to God each day, there is no need to pray five times a day. "That's so seventh century," he or she may say. This same person may say: "Since the reason behind fasting is God consciousness, I do not need to fast because I am so conscious of God." Or, he may say: "My wealth is already pure, thus I do not need to pay the 2.5% Zakah."

This is "designer Islam," and unlike Coca-Cola, it is not the real thing. That sort of reasoning simply does not make any sense. If someone either does not, or can not, keep up the ritual practice, he or she should not justify their actions by coming up with an "Islam Vista." Islam does not need to be "updated," although the thinking and practices of a great many Muslims do.

I know this to be the case because of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He did, in fact, directly talk to God in the highest of heavens, where even the powerful Archangel Gabriel could not venture. In addition, God directly communicated to the Prophet (pbuh) through Gabriel over a period of 23 years. Yet, despite this, he (pbuh) never missed a ritual daily prayer. If anyone were to justify not having to pray because he "talks to God every day," it would be the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Yet, the Prophet prayed five times a day like the rest of us.

There was no human being that walked this earth who was not more conscious of God than the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Yet, he still fasted the month of Ramadan. There was no one who was as generous as the Prophet (pbuh), yet he still paid Zakah when it was due upon him. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) even performed the pilgrimage just before he died.

If the Prophet (pbuh), who was the most God-conscious, generous, pure, and pious man ever to walk the earth, never failed to perform the ritual practices of Islam, how can we even think of trying to justify doing the same by inventing a modern-day "designer Islam"? Yet, admittedly, those who continue to practice Islam as the Prophet (pbuh) practiced the religion are a tiny minority today.

This is immaterial. In fact, to be in this minority is laudable, because, God said that this minority will be among the "forefront" on Judgment Day:

And those in the forefront will precede: they will be the favorites in gardens of happiness, a number of the ancients, and a few of those of later times. (56:10-14)

I don't know about you, but I want to be among that "few."

Hesham Hassaballa should be careful about citing the Koran as an authority for selected passages to prove his point. If the Koran is an authority for those passages, then it must be an authority for other passages such as:
(8:55) Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve;
(4:101) The unbelieves are your inveterate enemy;
(3:150) We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;
and many, many more passages which peaceful Muslims cannot accept in good conscience. So, it is not only the behavior of certain Muslims that needs updating. The theology, itself, needs updating because it is the theology that influences the behavior.

If the Prophet (pbuh), who was the most God-conscious, generous, pure, and pious man ever to walk the earth, never failed to perform the ritual practices of Islam, how can we even think of trying to justify doing the same by inventing a modern-day "designer Islam"?

By definition, a Prophet had an advantage over other mortals: due to direct communication from G-d, a Prophet knew what was required of him when G-d wanted him to know, as life changed around him.

The rest of us are not so fortunate, are we? To Muslims, is not the Koran just the nearest they can approach to the Word of G-d without Mohammed? Even us Jews who consider the Torah and Oral Law the essence of what G-d wants us to do and accept that its rituals are clearly stated, we often must study a great deal to figure out what we are to do in a given circumstance, and our rabbis will excuse Jews from prayers or even fasting if it causes them undue distress.

Sometimes for a Jew even the Torah and Oral Law don't seem enough. Is it OK for a Jew to shoot heroin? Can a Muslim can peruse the Koran for explicit guidance on the ethics of fetal cell therapy? How can a Muslim be certain he is bowing to Mecca in accordance to G-d's will if he is inside a space station with a hundred-minute orbit?

There are no more prophets, correct? so we must have "designer religion", practices adopted to the circumstances of today, guided by the traditions we can glean out of our holy books and common sense.

Certainly it is not the ritual practice of our ancestors. Perhaps we may not attain the same level of sanctity we would achieve if could follow the prescribed ritual. But if we cannot fulfill the ritual without the spirit G-d desires of us, isn't the entire exercise an abomination? Is it not better, then, to do what we can in the spirit G-d desires of us?

Montedoro:
"If the Koran is an authority for those passages, then it must be an authority for other passages"

Of course it is, Motedoro. Look at the context of each of the passages you give. For example, 8:55 follows a Qu'ranic truism that no people can be changed unless they endeavor to change themselves (8:53). What does that do to the context of your selected passage? Those who disbelieve are those unwilling to make changes in themselves--they're people who feel a sense of entitlement from this world and no accountability in the hereafter, which, according to God in the Qu'ran, is a hateful attitude that reflects directly on the individual.

--A

RE: Abdiel and Koran 8:55
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."


How nice of you to justify the Moslem requirement to consider all non-Moslems to be the vilest of animals. However, even your unsupported description of the context doesn't make me or any other non-Moslem feel better. For your information, we do not think of ourselves as the vilest of animals. The fact that you think of us that way, and justify it on Islamic theological grounds, is indicative of why the civilized world is having such a problem with Moslems.

And, I suppose you consider yourself a moderate??!!

"How nice of you to justify the Moslem requirement to consider all non-Moslems to be the vilest of animals"

Who said anything about non Muslims? The Qu'ranic translation you'd quoted says "those who disbelieve," which is defined by the context of the surah, a context I'd helped you explore.

"doesn't make me...feel better."

It wasn't intended to make you feel better. I'm not so sure that's possible. It was intended to help you understand the full meaning of the passage you were quoting. Whether or not it makes you feel better is, frankly, beyond my scope.

"or any other non-Moslem..."

Do you really think you're in a position to speak for every other non-Muslim on earth? That's a full 4/5th of humanity--rather vain of you, don't you think?

"For your information, we do not think of ourselves as the vilest of animals. The fact that you think of us that way, and justify it on Islamic theological grounds..."

I've never said I think of you one way or the other, but I will now: I don't happen to think non-Muslims are the "vilest of animals." That would be preposterous. And, of course, the Qu'ran says nothing even remotely like that.

--A

RE: Abdiel and who is a disbeliever?

1) The Koran very specifically defines who is a believer: "Only those are believers who believe in Allah and his messenger." (24:62).
Therefore, whenever the Koran refers to "disbelievers" or "unbelievers", it is not much of a stretch to say that the Koran is referring to all people who do not believe in Allah and his messenger -- that means precisely the 4/5 of humanity you refer to. Those are the ones whom the Koran calls the "vilest of animals". This is precisely the attitude towards non-Moslems which the Koran not only encourages but requires Moslems to hold.

As for my speaking for the rest of the non-Moslem world, no, it is not vain of me to suppose that they do not appreciate being called the "vilest of animals" because they do not "believe in Allah and his messenger".

The context of the Surah (8:53 which you "helped me to explore" does not at all explain away or contradict 8:55 and 24:62. Surah 8:55 talks about people who do not believe in Allah and his messenger; it does not talk about people who are unwillng to change themselves in general. Aren't all Christians disbelievers? Aren't all atheists disbelievers? Aren't all Hindus disbelievers? Aren't all pagans disbelievers? After all, none of them believe in Allah and his messenger.

In any case, Abdiel, I am much relieved to know that you, personally, do not happen to think that non-Muslims are the "vilest of animals" and that you believe the Koran says nothing even remotely like that even though it clearly says that disbelievers are the vilest of animals. To me and to others, Surah 8:55 appears unambiguous. It is apparently clear to lots of Moslems, too.

"The Koran very specifically defines who is a believer: "Only those are believers who believe in Allah and his messenger." (24:62).
Therefore, whenever the Koran refers to "disbelievers" or "unbelievers", it is not much of a stretch to say that the Koran is referring to all people who do not believe in Allah and his messenger -- that means precisely the 4/5 of humanity you refer to."

The Qu'ran defines what is a true Believer and what is a Disbeliever. It's a false dichotomy, however, to assume that one has to be either one or the other. Even an individual can be both, or have the traits of both, or the traits of neither.

"As for my speaking for the rest of the non-Moslem world, no, it is not vain of me to suppose that they do not appreciate being called the "vilest of animals""

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: don't you think it's vain of you to believe that the remaining 4/5ths of humanity would read the Qu'ran exactly as you've had it read to you, and speak about it the same way you have?

"The context of the Surah (8:53 which you "helped me to explore" does not at all explain away or contradict 8:55 and 24:62. Surah 8:55 talks about people who do not believe in Allah and his messenger; it does not talk about people who are unwillng to change themselves in general."

It's not necessary nor possible to "explain away" or "contradict" any ayat of Qur'an. Surah 8:55 doensn't mention people who fail to believe in God or the Prophets. You've just added those bits in. Why would you do that?

"Aren't all Christians disbelievers? Aren't all atheists disbelievers? Aren't all Hindus disbelievers? Aren't all pagans disbelievers? After all, none of them believe in Allah and his messenger."

Again, it's vain of you to presume you can speak for all of the above, even if your definition of "disbeliever" in the context of 8:55 is correct, which it isn't. Are you sure--100% sure--that you're correct about every single Christian, atheist, Hindu, and pagan? That's a big burden of knowledge you're putting on yourself, and I'm afraid you're going to have to tell me just how you can pretend to know all that.

--A

As another tiny part of the 4/5th I second Montedero's feelings that it does sound like the Koran is saying we are all vile animals. Why is it so hard for muslims to accept that there are many such politically incorrect statements in the Koran as there are in the Bible or any other religious text? This is why Islam appears to be still groping in the dark ages. Islam is not mature enough to take what is good from the texts, and leave out what it is not good like the rest of the mature religions have done.

Weisskopf asks:
"Why is it so hard for muslims to accept that there are many such politically incorrect statements in the Koran..?"
There is a very important answer to that fundamental question, namely, the fundamental belief in Islam that the Koran is the literal word of Allah, perfect, immutable and valid for all time. No part of it may be left out. This is a very different concept compared to the Torah and the New Testament which are both to be considered, not the literal word of God, but the inspired word of God, written by inspired human beings. This concept allows Jews and Christians a lot of room for selection, interpretation and rejection of certain passages which just does not exist for Muslims with respect to the Koran. This is the fundamental problem with Islam because the Koran (and the Hadith) contain passages which are unacceptable to any civilized person and which cannot be explained away despite all the wishful thinking of Abdiel and others.

Simplistic answer, Monte, from a self-serving mind, with one hand on keyboard, the other over his eyes. The Quran never suffered what the jewish and christian scriptures suffered from, namely, a centuries' old wonky process (of multiple hands “inspired” or conspired) that ultimately cannot be sourced with certitude. The Quran was revealed within a span of 23 years before a scrutinizing public. If you deny its divine origin, you cannot deny its contextual source. If there are passages of the Quran unacceptable to any civilized person, then explain how the civilization the Quran established for more than a 1000 years was the premier thing going on, say, the planet, while your ancestors were picking lice from their heads? Explain how the civilization inspired by the Quran brought Christian Europe from darkness, by the admission of even the inveterate haters of Islam? But even more important: here's the great success of the Quran that no envy-stricken heart or bigot can deny: God is God, and nothing else is or was or ever will be to any degree. It’s all about this, all about God as HE IS. God is God, not man, not the servant of man, not a begotten (nor begetting) myth-inspired chimera (triune or the personal property of a certain human ancestry or other borrowings from pagan infested powers surrounding the biblical framers)—but the one God, besides whom there is none. Without this, nothing is civilized, especially the killers of the ziono-evangelical cabal, who are responsible for more bloodshed than anyone on the face of the earth.

Somewhere along the way some of these muslims will read about how other religions got to where they got and accept that islam too is just another such religion. Until then we have to hear this mindless proclamation that it is above all other religions! Just as the Nazis could not understand how goofy they sounded with their thousand year Reich or Russians who thought the world would go Red, these guys just cannot grasp the truth!

As with all blind-faith inspired statements the guy who is asking questions about how Arabian culture flowered while Europe was in darkness completely misses the point!

It was precisely because Christian fanatics took over Europe and terrorized intellectuals into silence that Europe slid into darkness. This is exactly what is happening with islam today. But Migcoup cannot see it.

Monte, unlike you, Muslims don't rderive their rules by citing English translations of parts of verses quoted out of context. Rather, they follow a process for deriving these rules from the Qur'an and other sources.

To Irfy:
Your argument does not hold. The English translations of the Koran are:
1) made by experts who are fluent in both languages;
2) commissioned, approved, published and distributed by recognized Muslim organizations (the mosques, CAIR, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
3) in agreement with one another.

Therefore, the translations are a perfectly legitimate way to know what the Koran says. Don't forget that the vast majority of Moslems do not understand Arabic. Are you going to say that the vast majority of Moslems cannot and do not understand the Koran? Don't forget, also, that Islam and the Koran claim to be for all of mankind, the vast majority of which does not understand Arabic. How, then, can the Koran be accessible to all of mankind only in Arabic? It doesn't make any sense.

People like you argue that translations cannot be relied upon because you want to squelch all discussion of the meaning of the Koranic verses. People like you never supply the contexts which supposedly make the Koranic verses mean something opposite to what they so obviously appear to mean. Also, the Koran itself says that it is clearly written so that anyone can understand it.

Unfortunately, that is all too true.

Monte, again, you misunderstand my point. Islam has a sacred law. Just like Judaism does. The Old Testament contains some rather draconian verses that talk about killing people. However, Jews don't go around implementing them. Why?

Because Jews have a sacred law which was developed by applying certain rules to extract law from the texts.

The verses you have quoted out of historical and jurisprudential context are not used by jurists to derive the meaning you ascribe to them. You can argue al you like that Muslims must hate non-Muslims. But I simply don't believe you because I know you have not used a proper juristic methodology.

I'm not sure what your religious denomination (if any) is. However, presuming you are a Christian, it may be difficult for you to understand the notion of a sacred law.

Then again, the imputations you are making toward Muslims have been made for centuries against Jews. Just as Muslims have a concept of 'kafir', similarly Jews have a concept of 'goy' or 'goyim'. Notwithstanding what certain verses of the Torah state, I have never met a Jew who openly shows contempt to me for being a non-Jew.

Irfy, which specific verses of the Torah are you referring to? To my knowledge there is nothing in the Torah admonishing Jews, in the name of God, to go out and kill goyim until Judaism reigns supreme. The Koran DOES require Mohammed to go out and make war on non-Muslims until Islam reigns supreme. That's quite a difference. Also, the sixth commandment says: Thou shalt not murder (or kill). It does NOT say: Thou shalt not murder fellow Jews. The Koran, on the other hand, says very specifically: It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer. (4:92). To kill a non-Moslem is not forbidden.
If you compare the violent verses in the Bible to the violent verses in the Koran, you will see that they are very different: the ones in the Bible are directed at particular peoples in ancient times and places. They are not general requirements, valid for all of eternity, like the violent passages in the Koran are. That is a fundamental difference between Islam, on the one hand, and Judaism and Christianity, on the other. No Jew has ever felt required by God to go out and kill non-Jews or force non-Jews to adopt Judaism. The very notion is totally alien to Jews. The Christian requirement is: "Go forth and preach the Gospel to every living creature." It doesn't say to make war on non-Christians until Christianity reigns supreme. Many, many Muslims, however, do feel required to go out and kill non-Moslems (kufr) and subjugate the entire world for Islam. And they feel this way because the Koran and the Hadith tell them to do it.

Monte, was that last post of yours a joke? Are you seriously suggesting that Jews have never killed people in the name of God? Are you suggesting the Gospel has never been used by Christians to justify slavery, colonialism and modern warfare?

Surely you can't be serious. Surely you couldn't be stupid enough to make such a laughable claim.

Montedoro:
"Your argument does not hold. The English translations of the Koran are:
1) made by experts who are fluent in both languages;
2) commissioned, approved, published and distributed by recognized Muslim organizations (the mosques, CAIR, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
3) in agreement with one another."

That's truthy enough that it's probably not worth arguing. But it's also irrelevant. Your fatal flaw isn't that you don't know Arabic, it's that you cannot accurately quote the translations either. It's patently clear to just about anyone capable of reading more than a single sentence that your reading of 8:55 is woefully short of complete. You've argued, and been wrong, that the "disbeliever" moniker as applied in that quote applies to all non-Muslims, even though the context immediately preceding 8:55 clearly lays out to whom the admonition applies. To "prove" your "point," and we'll use those terms loosely, you apply a verse not even close to adjacent to 8:55--not in chronology, traditional placement, or meaning--that doesn't even use the same term. To make the connection, you assume a false dichotomy, a charge you haven't bothered answering, even though any rudimentary study of classical Arabic will tell you, and conclusively, that "Mu'min," believer, and "Kaafir," unbeliever, aren't diametrically opposed to one another in the same way as their English equivalents; they are opposed, but one isn't a direct semantic negation of the other in the same way as the English terms are, and that's just obvious.

You've also completely forgotten, or haven't bothered reading--even though I provided it to you directly--that Qur'an explicitly states humanity's capacity for change. It states as much in the immediate context of 8:55. What was once Mu'min can be Kaafir, and vice versa. You make monoliths out of men, as if they're not capable of changing. Who's more hateful towards humanity, then: the Qur'an, or you?

And, to be honest, your argument's a little boring. Don't you think anyone before you has tried to do what you do? It's not particularly novel, and it's certainly uninteresting. Don't you think, for instance, that the people who taught you to read Qu'ran the way you read it tried to harvest Qu'ran in a useless attempt to demonstrate it says something it can't possibly say? They did, trust me. And it wasn't interesting then, either.

--A

To Abdiel:
Here are three translations of the verse in question.

008.055
YUSUFALI: For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.
PICKTHAL: Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.
SHAKIR: Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

It seems obvious that the Koran is here referring to everyone who does not accept Islam. If you disagree with that, then please tell us who, exactly, is included among these vilest of animals and worst of beasts. No matter how you try to prettify it, the Koran is still dehumanizing an entire enormous class of people merely because they do not accept Islam.

This totally intolerant attitude is repeated in 98:6. To wit:

YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.

You are implying that there is some sort of significant difference between "disbelievers", "unbelievers" and non-Moslems. What is the difference?

You don't like the fact that I referred to verse 24:62 because it is found in a different part of the Koran. Why does its placement in the Koran change its meaning? It defines precisely who is meant by believer. Why is it wrong to assume that all those who do not accept Islam (and Mohammed as prophet) are "unbelievers", "disbelievers" or simply non-Moslems?

Of course people are capable of changing, but so what? Why do you think that is relevant to 8:55 and 98:6? The fact that they do not accept Islam should not make them the worst of animals and the vilest of creatures. And, those who change from Islam to non-Islam should not be subject to being murdered as Mohammed ordered should be done.

The problem here is that Islam dehumanizes those who do not accept Islam.

To Irfy:

I did not say what you said I said. Read my statements again. The nature of the treatement of non-believers (non-Jews in the Torah and non-Christians in the New Testament) is entirely different from the treatment of non-Moslems in the Koran and the Hadith. These fundamental differences in attitudes towards non-believers in the respective texts is what allowed Jews and Christians to overcome (to a large degree) intolerant behavior towards non-believers. And, those differences are what explains the violent intolerance towards non-Moslems displayed by so many Moslems today -- 1400 years after Mohammed. Jews and Christians became more tolerant by moving closer to their holy texts whereas Moslems become more intolerant by moving closer to theirs. Why do all Moslem terrorists and their supporters quote the Koran and Hadith? Do they all misunderstand Islam?

Montedoro:
"I did not say what you said I said."

I'm sorry. I've just finished laughing for five straight minutes, and I'm still speechless. Is that what you were going for?

Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle...

--A