Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Is this the beating heart of Islam?
If the the Western media is remotely fair in its reporting from Saudi Arabia, the religious authorities at the historical, spiritual, and geographical center of Sunni Islam are brutal and cruel:
A NIGERIAN convert to Islam who took his sick neighbour to hospital has been jailed in Saudi Arabia because he was not related to the elderly woman.
Ibrahim Mohammad Lawal was convicted of immoral behaviour by religious police who enforce the state's strict code banning women from mixing with men other than relatives...
Lawal, an Islamic studies student in Riyadh, took his 63-year-old neighbour to hospital after discovering she needed medical attention. When she returned home he wanted to check on her progress and was admitted to her apartment where she was with three female relatives.
Five members of the force, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, barged in and took him into custody, he said.
Presumably, those Western leftists who think that there is no practical difference between Christian and Islamist fundamentalists can cite numerous similar episodes from the American heartland.
20 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Aug 07, 07:03:00 PM:
Exactly ! The equating of Christian fundamentalists with Muslim fundamentalists such as the Wahabis is a long-standing theme among the "enlightened" left. I am agnostic, but I can live with fundamentalists. After I posted a comment here a while back, reiterating the absurdity of equating Christian fundamentalists with Wahabis (in response to a comment of CC), one poster brought up the issue of abortion clinic bombers.The only problem with equating abortion clinic bombers with Christian fundamentalists, all in an attempt to say that "our fundamentalists are as bad as their fundamentalists" is that according to the National Abortion Federation, there has not been a murder against an abortion provider since 1998, and no successful bombing since 2001. Compare that to over 6000 killed by Muslim extremists (see website Religion of Peace) in the last three months. As an educated agnostic, I would much rather live in Possum Trot than in Mecca or Qom. I only wish that more of the "enlightened" left would really ponder this question.
By , at
Tue Aug 07, 07:55:00 PM:
That poster was me! As I see it you and TH both are deliberately mischaracterizing what it is that those of us critical of Christian fundamentalism are trying to say. It's not we "think that there is no practical difference between Christian and Islamist fundamentalists." Obviously, there is a practical difference and a very large one at that, but that's not the point! The question really is, to what extent is the practical difference a result of the fact that the Islamic fundamentalists are given a free hand to carry out their plans, while the Christian fundamentalists are kept in check by a (more or less) secular government, and a Constitution that guarantees certain liberties won't be taken away?
There are many examples of Christian fundamentalist groups and individuals who seek to censor literature or film they find offensive, who seek to ban behavior some book tells them is wrong, who have no respect for individual freedoms, and are on the whole unwilling to just live and let live. If they had it their way, our society would have its own "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice," and that is the sense in which they are equivalent to Islamic fundamentalists: if they were in charge, which thankfully they aren't, our society would share many characteristics with Iran's. Maybe their "vice squad" wouldn't be as brutal or cruel, but it would be no less tyrannical or unfree.
By , at
Tue Aug 07, 08:30:00 PM:
How much actual person-to-person contact have you had with Christian fundamentalists? Sounds to me as if you are demonizing that which you do not know. Deal with the actual; we have a free society, instead of making up some Cambridge inhabitant's idea of fundamentalist nightmare.
By , at
Tue Aug 07, 08:59:00 PM:
So TH and I are deliberately mischaracterizing what it is that those of us critical of Christian fundamentalism are trying to say.
From Rosie O'Donnell: “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.”
Al Gore in The New Yorker (9/13/04):
'Gore's mouth tightened. A Southern Baptist, he, too, had declared himself born again, but he clearly had disdain for Bush's public kind of faith. "It's a particular kind of religiosity," he said. "It's the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. They all have certain features in common. '
By 
TigerHawk, at
Tue Aug 07, 09:24:00 PM:
Phrizz11 and others:
A few stray comments.
1. Phrizz11, surely you are right that most leftists critics of fundamentalism are closer to your position than the charicature in my post.
2. However, as Mr. Tejano points out, there are high profile examples that are not far from my description of them.
3. There is a critical difference between Christianity as practiced by the vast majority of its adherents since modernity and Islam. Christians believe in separation of church and state in a legal and institutional sense, even when they believe that Christianity should be the state religion. Even during the Middle Ages, the church and the secular authorities were separate power structures, separate sources of justice and injustice. Islam, on the other hand, virtually requires unification of mosque and state, and the use of the instrumentalities of the state in the service of the religion.
4. Liberals often conflate fundamentalist Christians and evangelical Christians. One is not necessarily the other. They believe different things. Only some of each group are politically active, apart from voting.
5. I admit, I am not a particularly good churchgoer. We rarely get churched up in the summer, and have been increasingly derelict during the school year. I personally think that many opinions held by the so-called "Christian right" are idiotic -- we had an evangelical nanny who declared herself opposed to Harry Potter books -- but I have never in my entire life felt threatened by them. Admittedly, I am not gay (not that there is anything wrong with that), but still. C'mon. Chris Hedges is far more unhinged in his paranoia about the religious right than any actual Christian conservative that I have ever encountered.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed Aug 08, 12:17:00 AM:
I would suggest, Phrizz that your argument of "well, the Christians would do it too if they were given the chance" does not reflect well on you. I would be curious what evidence you could put forward for that
By , at
Wed Aug 08, 12:47:00 AM:
They would,nt have done this even in the middle ages to any peasent
By , at
Wed Aug 08, 03:36:00 AM:
BT: "How much actual person-to-person contact have you had with Christian fundamentalists?"
Totally irrelevant. What matters is what they are trying to achieve politically. Political groups that claim the backing of fundamentalist Christians such as the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition seek to censor speech that offends them, seek to ban scientific research that offends them, and seek legislative restrictions on persons and couples who choose not to live their personal lives the way the Christian right dictates. I speculate that the only reason they don't go further is that they don't think they could get away with it, and extrapolating their proposals gets you a country with a "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice."
AVI: Of course I can't prove that "the Christians would do it too," because thankfully we've never given them the chance. Why do I speculate that if fundamentalist Christians had their way, America would be an unpleasant place to live? Well, read the above paragraph, and perhaps also a history of the Salem witch trials, to get a sense of my line of thinking.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Aug 08, 08:51:00 AM:
Christianity is all about proselytizing and missionary work, but I've never heard "let's slaughter the infidels and unite the world under a Christian theocracy," well, ever. But there's an entire genre of Islamist literature that espouses just that.
Christians who bomb empty abortion clinics (i.e. no one is killed, only the facility is damaged) are condemned and locked away. By fellow Christians.
Muslims who explode 50 people on buses in Tel Aviv literally have parties thrown in their honor and their pictures put up on billboards. By fellow Muslims.
Christians have found it remarkably easy to live, work, and worship peaceably in democratic societies, and even in non-democratic ones, and even where they are persecuted. (under Communists, other religions, or whatever) 'Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's,' right?
Muslims... not so much. The best example I can think of is Turkey.
The principle of theocratic rule is literally built into the religious law of Islam. There's no escaping it. The best you can do (like most Muslims in America, who are remarkably well integrated when compared to their brethren in, say, Germany, Britain, or China) is ignore it.
Personal note: I am not Christian. A good chunk of my family are fundamentalist Christians and I completely rejected that as I grew up. For much of my life, I was decidedly anti-Christian. It was only after being exposed to the far sicker phenomenon of fundamentalist Islam that that streak tapered away. I may hate their way of thinking and I may hate the way that they feel about how I think, but at least I can feel confident about not having a Pentacostal (for example) blow up my bus for God and become a folk hero, or literally execute me and my family (and rape my wife, because as a captured woman of a non-believer she becomes property to be used) because we don't follow the correct form of Christianity.
Some of my American Christian folks may be religious crazies, but they're whole orders of magnitude different from Pakistani Muslim religious crazies.
"But they're both crazy!"
And I suppose that bi-polar people are the same as paranoid schizophrenic people? That may be correct on a basic level, but it betrays a serious lack of understanding of the two cases.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Aug 08, 10:23:00 AM:
If they had it their way...
But they don't and never will. That argument is a non-starter. Pure theater for the rubes.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Wed Aug 08, 11:47:00 AM:
>"Christians believe in separation of church and state in a legal and institutional sense, even when they believe that Christianity should be the state religion."
Good point, TH. And the latter view has fewer adherents all the time. Benedict XVI, widely caricatured in the secular press as a mean-spirited reactionary, certainly doesn't favor Catholiciam as a state religion. From George Weigel's review of "Jesus of Nazareth":
"If, amidst some familiar Ratzingerian themes, there is a new chord struck with particular force, it is Benedict XVI’s insistence, repeated several times, that a Christian Church faithful to its Lord cannot be a Church of power. Benedict does not quite describe Christianity’s alliance with state power as a Babylonian captivity. Still, he comes very close when he writes that “the temptation to use power to secure the faith has arisen again and again in various forms throughout the centuries, and again and again faith has risked being suffocated in the embrace of power. The struggle for the freedom of the Church, the struggle to avoid identifying Jesus’ Kingdom with any political structure, is one that has to be fought century after century. For the fusion of faith and political power always comes at a price: faith becomes the servant of power and must bend to its criteria.”
Those words are a sharp challenge to those Catholics who still seek a confessional state, either along the lines of the old regimes in Europe or according to a more contemporary, liberation theology model."
Amen to that! It's a wonderful state of affairs, IMHO, when the Pope sounds like Roger Williams.
btw, Phrizz, I believe in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture and that justification is by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone. Not everyone who holds theologically conservative Protestant views wants a close relationship between church and state -- not by a long shot.
By , at
Wed Aug 08, 01:21:00 PM:
As Edward Everett said that Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address had said more in several minutes than Everett had in 2 hours, it might be said that Purple Avenger said more in 3 sentences than I do in the following.
“The Salem Witch trials” are examples of FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN? I recently read an essay that made the argument that persecutions of alleged witches in Europe and in Salem were more a consequence of the remnants of paganism than of Christianity. From the historical record: Christian activists, a.k.a. FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN, were FUNDAMENTAL in bringing down the slave trade and slavery.
Atheists and non-Christians have done much more harm to the world in the last century than Christians. Communism has been militantly atheistic, and along the way has slaughtered an estimated 90 million (Black Book of Communism). From what I have read of Hitler, while he was not a militant atheist, he was not a churchgoer. I would not lay Hitler’s deeds at the feet of the Catholic Church he was raised in, as he rejected it. Considering the harm these folk have done, perhaps you should get into lather about the atheists and such. After all, in the last century they have done a hell of a lot more damage than your FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN.
Why do I speculate that if fundamentalist Christians had their way, America would be an unpleasant place to live?
For brevity, I mention only the Christian Coalition, who by one Wikipedia estimate comprises all of 30,000. There are tens of millions of Christian fundamentalists, using the dictionary definition of Fundamentalist: literal interpretation of the Bible. Can you assume that the Christian Coalition speaks for a majority, or even a substantial proportion, of Christian fundamentalists? That is a very shaky assumption. In addition, for all the tens of millions of fundamentalist Christians, abortion clinic bombers are statistically nonexistent. That says something to me, if not to you, about FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN.
For brevity, I will deal only with only free speech, and not your complete laundry list of potential affronts to our freedoms coming from the FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN groups you listed. From my agnostic perspective and from the perspective of my Buddhist sister, the recent attempts to ban mention of Christianity in public spaces are also affronts to free speech. Consider the controversy over “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” Saying “Merry Christmas” sets us on the path of making Christianity an established religion, thus violating the Constitution ?
If you maintain that FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN are such a problem on the issue of free speech, my reply to you is short: “Piss Christ.” We face a much bigger challenge today to free speech from the politically correct than from FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN. Look at what happened at Columbia when the Minutemen tried to speak. Look at Pace University and the alleged flushed Koran. Would there have been the same consequences with a flushed Bible? Look at what happened at San Francisco State to Republican activists who stomped on a Hezbollah flag. It wasn’t FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN who decided to investigate them (and ultimately not prosecute); it was the politically correct SFSU administration. Had they stomped on a US flag, they would have never been investigated.
In my opinion, the politically correct, citizens who seldom agree with FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN, have already made America “an unpleasant place to live.”
From another perspective, look at CAIR’s repeated challenges to free speech. BTW, we need someone with very deep pockets to initiate and sustain a lawsuit against CAIR, to bring out into the open CAIR’s foreign funders.
BT (me): "How much actual person-to-person contact have you had with Christian fundamentalists?"
Totally irrelevant.
In my judgment, it is not. Both Dawnfire82 and I have had personal experience in dealing with FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN. My beloved and esteemed grandmother, for starters. Both Dawnfire82 and I have no more desire to have FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN run our lives than you do. One stands up for what one believes, and that is that. What is the problem there? Because Dawnfire82 and I have personally stood up to FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN, and have lived to tell the tale, we do not fear them. Because we have seen the human side of FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN, we do not demonize them.
By , at
Wed Aug 08, 07:42:00 PM:
BT: First of all, "tu quoque" does nothing to excuse the behavior of the Christian right; their political goals are and remain reprehensible no matter what anyone else has done. You may feel that my priorities are misplaced, but that's a separate issue; I would ask you in return, why do you feel such difficulty in vocally condemning their beliefs, seeking to deflect attention elsewhere via rhetorical device? Is it because you "know them personally?" And why do you feel so comfortable supporting a party who is deeply indebted to the organizations I have mentioned?
Second, organizations like the CC, AFA, and FotF, while they may be a minority of fundamentalist Christians, nevertheless claim the mantle of political representation for them. If the vast "silent majority" of tens of millions of Christian fundamentalists disagrees with what these groups are trying to achieve, then really, their silence is truly deafening. I don't know of any fundamentalist Christian organization speaking up for tolerance of gay people; and just as I'm sure you don't excuse me for the evils of excessive PCness perpetrated in the name of the liberal cause, I don't excuse Christian fundamentalists for not speaking their conscience (if such exists) on issues of tolerance.
I could continue, but seeing as how this comment thread has hit its Godwin's law threshold, maybe it's time to stop posting now.
By , at
Wed Aug 08, 10:11:00 PM:
We face a much bigger challenge today to free speech from the politically correct than from FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN
This is my point of view. It is not a matter of "tu quoque." It is a matter of priorities. I repeat. From my point of view the PC are a bigger threat to our freedoms than the Christian right. The islamofascists are a bigger threat to our freedom than the Christian right. I worry about them. The historical record points out that atheists are a much bigger threat to our life and freedom than Christians. Therefore, I do not worry much about the Christian right. My worry meter has its limits and priorities. (Perhaps because I once was one, I do not worry about atheists per se.)
You may not agree with me.
IMHO, you and the likes of Chris Hedges have a corncob up an orifice regarding the Christian right. I don’t. That doesn’t mean that I agree with the Christian right on domestic issues.
I began arguing politics and theology with the Christian right over 40 years ago. I daresay that I have argued politics and theology in person with the Christian right much more than you have ever done. I do not wish to "vocally condemn the beliefs" of the Christian right to you because I find your wanting me to do so, either implicitly or explicitly, to be condescending and insulting. It’s that simple.
By , at
Thu Aug 09, 02:56:00 AM:
I know I said I'd leave this alone but I can't stop myself:
"The historical record points out that atheists are a much bigger threat to our life and freedom than Christians."
That is utter nonsense. You are conflating crimes committed *by atheists* with crimes committed *in the name of atheism*. Not the same thing at all, because the slaughters you mentioned weren't inflicted because of atheism or the lack thereof, whereas there is a pretty long and sordid history of crimes committed explicitly in the name of Christianity. It would be like me saying that fundamentalist Christianity causes one to be a killer because the murder rate in the bible belt is higher than elsewhere in the country. But that would be intellectually dishonest, no?
In fact, just look at this gem that you produced:
"From what I have read of Hitler, while he was not a militant atheist, he was not a churchgoer. I would not lay Hitler’s deeds at the feet of the Catholic Church he was raised in, as he rejected it. Considering the harm these folk have done, perhaps you should get into lather about the atheists and such. After all, in the last century they have done a hell of a lot more damage than your FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BOGEYMEN."
That is the classic argumentum ad Hitleriam: Hitler was an atheist, so atheism must be evil! Come on, do you really believe that?
Seriously, no one has (yet) been killed in the name of political correctness - so if you're "worry meter" really rates PC types and atheists above fundamentalist Christians based on that reasoning, ignoring the pernicious political views that fundamentalists are espousing *right now*, you're the crazy with a stick lodged somewhere, not me.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Aug 09, 07:07:00 AM:
Phrizz -
"No one has yet been killed in the name of political correctness."
No, but there is a good argument that the American deaths on September 11 were because of political correctness. But maybe that point supports your argument that there is a distinction between an act "in the furtherance of" an ideology and an act that is the result of one.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Thu Aug 09, 11:44:00 AM:
Phrizz,
>If the vast "silent majority" of tens of millions of Christian fundamentalists disagrees with what these groups are trying to achieve, then really, their silence is truly deafening. I don't know of any fundamentalist Christian organization speaking up for tolerance of gay people . . ."
I don't claim the label "Fundamentalist," because it has anti-intellectual connotations, but I do agree with the Fundamentalists on the fundamental theological issues.
So now let me say this as clearly as I can: I heartily disagree with the government policies that groups like Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family advocate. I agree with them on a great many moral issues; I disagree with them strongly on the role of the state.
For example, if I were the tsar of such things, I would not have governments issue marriage licenses - period. State governments would permit civil unions between any two adults, regardless of gender. If the couple also wanted to get "married," they could do so via whatever manner of private-organization ceremony they found themselves compatible with. The legal playing field would be completely level.
So how's that for tolerance of gay people? I won't pretend that I consider gay sex to be something other than a sin (and I will say so). I also am very committed to the principle of not using the power of the state to advance what I believe are the Church's objectives.
I don't know that I am particularly typical, but I wanted to provide you with one live, present counterexample to your prevailing view of theologically conservative Christians.
By , at
Thu Aug 09, 06:25:00 PM:
That is the classic argumentum ad Hitleriam: Hitler was an atheist, so atheism must be evil! Come on, do you really believe that?
You distort my statements. I never stated that Hitler was an atheist. I stated he was not a militant atheist. I stated he was not a churchgoer. Moreover, I was consistent in the paragraph where I mentioned Hitler . “Atheists and non-Christians have done much more harm to the world in the last century than Christians .” Again “ perhaps you should get into lather about the atheists and such.” ( and such= Hitler ) This is not the only such distortion in your recent post, but it is the only one I will deal with.
That is utter nonsense. You are conflating crimes committed *by atheists* with crimes committed *in the name of atheism*.
Is it utter nonsense? ? I deal with what people DO. For now I will deal with your fine distinction, which I find ironic in light of your above distortion.
We are in agreement, I hope, that Communists committed many crimes in the name of the Communist cause and ideology. What proportion of these Communists with blood-stained hands were NOT atheists? Very few were not atheists; practically none were openly believers. You might argue that the fact that 99 44/100% of the Communists with blood-stained hands were atheists doesn’t matter. You say it is coincidence. A robber of a convenience store might be Catholic, or Southern Baptist. Here is the difference. Behind the Iron Curtain, members of the Communist Party had to be atheists. One could not openly be a believer, a churchgoer, and belong to the Communist Party. No one is requiring convenience store robbers to be Catholic- or Southern Baptist.
Atheism was as much a pillar of the Communist ideology as practiced behind the Iron Curtain, as was the dictatorship of the proletariat or government ownership of the means of production. As atheism was one of the basic pillars of Communist ideology as practiced behind the Iron Curtain, and crimes were committed in the name of that ideology, the relationship between atheism and those crimes is not coincidental. Any crime committed in the name of Communism was also committed in the name of the ideological pillars of Communism as practiced behind the Iron Curtain, one of which was atheism. A member of the Communist party could not cherry pick the ideological pillars: he had to accept them all.
Does this mean that atheism is equated with communism? No, because there is no causal relationship between atheism and political ideology. Communism chose atheism; atheism did not choose Communism.
Here is what it says. Anyone who thinks that atheism is pure as the driven snow and that by contrast Christianity is besmirched with blood, is distorting the historical record, especially of the last 100 years. Millions were killed in the name of Communism, and one of the pillars of Communism as practiced behind the Iron Curtain, was atheism.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Aug 10, 12:36:00 AM:
TH: "...those Western leftists who think that there is no practical difference between Christian and Islamist fundamentalists..."
Here's a difference:
Eighteen face death for homosexual activities in Nigeria
IOL (South Africa) reports on Aug. 9:
"The court on Wednesday heard that the men, who were wearing female clothing, had come to the city from five neighbouring states to celebrate a gay 'marriage'.
"Prosecuting police officer Tadius Boboi said the men's actions had contravened the sharia penal code..."
Link:
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=68&art_id=nw20070809174802572C407112
By Bigmo, at
Sat Aug 25, 03:57:00 PM:
The Quran(Koran) Concerning other monotheist faiths:
Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin good and forbid wrong; and they hasten in good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are God fearing. 3:113-115
And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture, those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. 3:199
Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . 2:62
Say: "O people of the Scripture : Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God. 3:64
And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. 2.111-113
If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them 4.124
The Quran(Koran) Concerning who we fight or don't:
As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9
Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, �Our Lord is God.� 22:39-40
The Quran(Koran) Concerning freedom:
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.
16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .
6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.
4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."
11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?�
17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.
21:107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."
22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do."
24.54. Say: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.
36:16 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'
39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.
42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....
64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."
The Quran(Koran) concerning justice:
"And among His signs are the creation of the heaven and earth, and the variation in your language and your colors; verily in that are signs for those who know" (30:22).
"Satan seeks only to cast among you enmity and hate"(5:91).
O you who believe! Stand out for justice, as witnesses to God, and even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be rich or poor. An-Nisaa� 4:134
"O you who believe! Be the maintainers of justice and bearers of witness for God's sake though it be against your own self, parents and relatives" (4:135).
"O you mankind! We have created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes so that you know each other. Verily the most honored in the sight of God is the one who is most righteous" (49:13).
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety and fear God, for God is well acquainted with all that you do. 5:8
And thus We made of you a justly balanced community that you might bear witness to humankind and the Apostle might bear witness over you. 2:143
O you who believe, observe your duty to God with right observance, and die not except in a state of submission (to Him). And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of God, and do not separate, and remember God's favor unto you: how you were enemies and He put love between your hearts so that you became as brothers by His grace: and how you were upon the brink of a fire and He saved you from it. Thus God makes clear His revelations unto you so that you may be guided" (3:102-103).
"The believers are nothing else other than brothers, Thus make peace between your brethren and observe your duty to God that you may haply receive His mercy" (49: 1 0).
The Quran(Koran) Concerning propagation:
Invite (all humankind) to the path of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in the most kindly manner, for, indeed, your Lord knows best as to who strays from His path, and best who are the right-guided. (16:125)
Had your Lord so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained faith, will you then compel people, against their will, to believe? 10:99
And We have not sent you, but as mercy to all the worlds. 21:107
Islam is peace!
