Is there a web site that gives a sort of “beginners guide” to the Muslim religion for westerners? Something that maybe explains the differences between factions and what they believe? There is so much misinformation out there and I’m having trouble sifting through it.
Thanks!
I like religioustolerance.org when researching the basics. Here’s their Islam page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm
I know you asked about websites, but if you want a historic perspective on Islam and how it came to be what it is today, Karen Armstrong’s book (I think the title is just Islam) is great. It’s not exactly a light read, but it doesn’t assume any prior knowledge.
ETA: I looked up the book and it’s called Islam: A Short History.
Dr Who, that’s along the lines of what I was looking for, though I was hoping for something that addressed more issues. The history of Islam is something I know very very little about (along with most Americans), and I would like to learn more of it. I will try to track down Karen Armstrong’s book also.
I have a friend who sends me every anti Muslim (and anti Obama) email he can. One had a link to a youtube video called “3 things about Islam (you probably don’t know)”. There’s also a web site by the same group, The White Roses. It’s too long to go into, but basically the Quran is in code and is arranged from shortest chapter to longest, the contradictory messages of violence and peace are resolved by looking for the more recent passage, and the violent stuff was all written last. True, grain of truth, or complete bullshit? The web site is promoting education as the path to peace, urging people to read the (unscrambled) Quran for themselves. They’re basically saying Muslims need to acknowledge that the Quran is flawed and imperfect to stop fundamentalists from using it as absolute instructions from Allah to promote violence. It’s an interesting site, but I was wondering how much of this (and some of the other stuff on the video/web site) is true.
The Qur’an is actually arranged from longest sura (chapter) to shortest, these people are obviously ignorant of even the most basic things about their subject. No one really knows the correct chronological order of the suras, so I’m not even sure what to make of the argument that violent stuff was written last. The entire basis of their argument has no validity.
I find it highly improbable that there is some kind of code built into the Qur’an.
Is there violent stuff in the Qur’an? Sure. But it’s no worse than plenty of stuff in the Bible. Are these people also demanding that fundamentalist Christians acknowledge that the Bible is flawed? Having read verses in the Bible about what specific crimes deserve stoning and how the Hebrews went out and killed every man, woman, and child in some tribe because god told them to, I find it hard to get overly worked up about some violent verses in the Qur’an.
BTW, you can read the whole Qur’an here. I personally don’t find it particularly engaging, but I am assured that the Arabic original is extremely beautiful and poetic.
I haven’t read Karen Armstrong’s book on Islam, but I’ve read a couple of her other books, and based on that, I would second the recommendation. I also know (because I used to work in a bookstore!) that it really is very short.
Yes, Armstrong’s Islam book isn’t very long. One issue with just reading the Quran is that, like the Bible, there are different translations that interpret certain passages very differently. When trying to decide which translation to carry in my store, I learned a lot about Muslim feelings on English-language Qurans.
The arrangement of the verses is not really an issue for the validity of the text for Muslims. Muslim theologians are quite aware that some of the verses for the same surah came to Muhammad at different times. The reason it’s arranged the way it is, leaving aside the belief that it’s the way the Qur’an in Heaven is arranged, is simply for convenience. It’s pretty much the same reason the Epistles in the New Testament are in the order they are.
Yes, the authors of the web site and video are claiming the Quran itself says “if there are two conflicting passages, the one written later takes precedence”. There are links to “unscrambled” english versions on the site that supposedly have the whole thing laid out in chronological order. Hence the “Quran is in code” bit. But from what you guys are saying, the correct order of chapters is pretty much either unknown, debatable, or unimportant.
Thanks for the information, it sounds like the site is just anti-muslim propaganda then. Should have expected as much, this came from the same person that sends emails about WTC conspiracy theories “Building Seven was CLEARLY bought down with explosives!” :dubious: :rolleyes:
if something sounds in accord with my views, that’s “information”. If it doesn’t, that’s “misinformation” and “anti this-and-that propaganda”. Right, Apocalypso?
What’s so hard to accept about the fact that at Mecca Muhammad’s revelation was mostly about peace and goodwill, whereas once he moved to Medina and was continually fighting various tribes for various reasons he got a whole lot of surahs commanding war and annihilation of the enemy as well as glorifying Allah’s role in bringing that about?
Similarly, what’s so hard to accept about the fact that many Muslims believe that verses that came later supersede the ones that came earlier? Just because you and half the Muslims don’t like some of the possible conclusions from this, doesn’t mean that the other half of the Muslims wouldn’t agree with the same and wouldn’t use that as a guide to action when possible.
E.g. when Hamas says that they need “hudna” with the infidel just like Muhammad signed such treaties with his enemies, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Hamas has read the peaceful verses and decided to apply them in practice to bring about eternal peace. More likely, that means that Hamas knows that all such hudnas in the past allowed building up of forces for the subsequent resumption of war, until the enemy was destroyed.
Now, who are you or the so-called moderate Muslims to tell Hamas that their interpretation of Islamic teaching is wrong? Maybe Hamas is right and you are wrong, huh?
And be that as it may, do you suppose that the “moderate Muslims” living in Gaza or let’s say Iran are going to fight against the “extremist Muslims” weapons at hand to impose their preferred view or even simply use diligent persuasion to bring about the same thing? I would think no, I mean they are not suicidal or anything. And when one faction wisely keeps the mouth shut while the other marches around weapons at hand shouting slogans and persecuting opposition, guess whose standpoint prevails? Is this observation “anti propaganda” or is this a level-headed estimate of the situation as it is as opposed to what you would really like to see happen?
Leaving aside the rest of your post, the point of which I’m not really clear on, no one knows the original order of the verses. The Qur’an is not compiled in chronological order.
Internal evidence in many surahs is pretty clear about which surah was given when. If the surah talks about the Battle of Badr, was it not given during the Medina period at the time of the battle? Or if the surah talks about a bigshot Meccan guy and his wife who said bad things about Muhammad, was it not given when Muhammad was preaching in Mecca?
Further, if Bin Laden or the “Jurisprudent” folks running Iran believe that the right order is so-and-so and make such-and-such conclusions from that, then that’s a fact of life. You can hold your own opinions of the matter (see no evil, accept no timelines) but you should not be under impression that “Islam” is what you believe it to be. To the Guardians of Islamic Revolution Islam is something else entirely, and, like I said already above, who are you to say that you are more right than they are? If you say “truth of Islam is A” and GIR say “truth of Islam is B” why is A supposed to be the truth and B supposed to be lying anti-Islamic propaganda?
Who are the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution? The clerics in charge of Iran? Because I seriously doubt they would agree with much of Bin Laden’s interpretations, since they are Shi’a and Bin Laden is Sunni, and a Wahhabi.
I’m not saying that the truth of Islam is A. Or B. Or C. Islam is a religion followed by a billion people of many cultures all over the world. It isn’t easy to categorize, and I’m suspicious of anyone who tries to do so. It’s possible to use the Qur’an for evil, and also for good.
I just really, really, really doubt that it contains a code.
[quote=“code_grey, post:11, topic:553869”]
Of course, that logic could be applied to ANY religion, not just Islam. If someone claims the Bible justifies bombing abortion clinics and murdering gays, then how can you prove your interpretation is better than theirs?
But the answer most people accept is “majority rules”. The vast majority of Christians do not believe in bombing abortion clinics, therefore a reasonable person would conclude that is not representative of mainstream Christianity. Similarly, the vast majority of Muslims do not believe in terrorism or killing innocent civilians, so a reasonable person would conclude terrorism is not mainstream Islam, either.
[quote=“doubled, post:13, topic:553869”]
who said anything about “terrorism or killing innocent civilians”? Besides, who defines what is or is not “terrorism” or “innocent civilians”? E.g. Hamas has long ago figured out that no Israeli is an “innocent civilian” (a view most likely shared by 100% of Gaza religious “mainstream”) whereas Bin Laden seems to have extended the principle either to all Americans or at least to all people employed at the Financial District. You say “terrorism”, they say “military operation”.
Meanwhile, a pretty significant minority of Muslims believes in spreading their religion and the associated religious laws as widely as possible by force, politics and all other means available. Some of them live in the wannabe mideastern great power called Iran and probably lean towards the “force” approach and others live in the multicultural Europe and lean towards “politics”. Yet others are here in America and called CAIR. They may not be “mainstream” today, but they are not a small lunatic fringe as the case of abortionist killers. In fact, they may well be the leaders of the “mainstream” of tomorrow.
Incidentally, the worldwide media storms over the Danish cartoons, Pope’s remarks or the recent Florida guy who promised to burn English translations of the Koran (not the text in Arabic that is actually the true Koran) - does it reflect the attitudes of the “mainstream” and the “majority” that rules? Or is it all activities of fringe groups of no account as well?
Sure, I think that’s accurate.