Taliban are Enemies of Pakistan and Islam

I'd like to thank the author for speaking the truth.

The Taliban is the enemy of all free people, and all people of faith. In particular it is the enemy of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is the enemy of it's own believers, who are tricked into killing themselves and innocent people.

Salman assures us that
“The very idea of imposition of religion on others goes against the heart of the Qur'an. In Surah 2:256, the Qur'an says forcefully: "There is no compulsion in religion."”
The above often quoted verse by Muslim apologists is an early Meccan Quran Sura that was abrogated by many later Medina verses, such as
Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (in prophet hood of Mohammad). Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”.

There are many similar jewels, as listed in the link below that were penned down after the Muslim prophet gained power and which cancelled the few early somehow tolerant verses. Abrogation of early verses of Quran by later ones is a well known fact to anyone with even a scant knowledge of Islam. The fact that it is repeated and so often on this forum by supposedly knowledgeable guests is, in my opinion, a premeditated and clear insult to the readers’ knowledge and intelligence.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

As long as Islam's calls for Jihad are heard by Muslims, Islam will remain the same. Islam cannot be respected. The Taliban may represent the most extreme face of Islam, but Islam is simply incompatible with Western values. No amount of spindoctoring is going to change that.

hsnkhwj said,
"If you read carefully, I mentioned that Quran is a collection of messages from God over 22 years. The historical context of each message for that particular day must be kept in mind. None of the verses are meant to supercede any of the previous messages."

you say none is meant to supersede the other, but i've shown you texts FROM THE KORAN and muslim scholars showing that this is not a settled matter. apparently, like there are 100s (1000s?) of different christian interpretations of christian scripture, there are many interpretations of islamic scripture. many muslims DO believe in "abrogation". you may not, and that's fine, but some do.

yes, context, context, context....would that only everybody read all judeochrislamic scripture in its PROPER CONTEXT - as 1000s-of-years-old historical/religious ARTIFACTS, not as handbooks for spiritual salvation.

ancient scripture is useful to us today for reconstructing ancient cultures' beliefs about the universe. modern humans should pay no more attention to the specifics of these books than we do the ancient's musings on astronomy, geology, biology etc.... these were (by our standards) scientifically ignorant men who believed in witchcraft and magic spirits, thought the sun orbits the earth (a self-evident truth that's not true...), and thought that floods and famines had something to do with (their particular) god's wrath over their personal behavior. it's kind of self-centered, but they didn't believe the world was very big back then either.

a rational person hoping to bring ancient scripture into the 21st century can only try to salvage the "good parts" and toss out the rest as being a product of their ancient CONTEXT.

"slay idolators wherever you find them" is not a "good verse" in ANY CONTEXT.

Arif2: I really do not want to dignify your diatribe by engaging with you. For your information, Kaaba was re-built by monotheists like Abraham--centuries before Muhammad was born. It was not built by the pagans.

Your statement is simply speculation, nothing else.

Preaching monotheism was not a crime. It was the idol worshipers who wanted to kill Muhammad FOR PREACHING. He escaped to Medina and built the Army and conquered back the city of Mecca.

walter-in-fallschurch: If you read carefully, I mentioned that Quran is a collection of messages from God over 22 years. The historical context of each message for that particular day must be kept in mind. None of the verses are meant to supercede any of the previous messages.

Hope you will read the history of Islam from some reliable source like Karen Armstrong or John Esposito and the four parts posted above where you can find verses and the historical account of Muslims promoting tolerance.

Otherwise, it is useless to converse with any one with a closed mind.

Actually what's even funnier is this...
"When Muhammad conquered Kaaba back from the Pagans, he declared general amnesty."
Any person with room temperature IQ would ask; Since when did the Kaaba belong to Mohammed that he had to take it "back" from them?
Then this...
"Later, there were battles between Muslims and Jews and Christians because Islam was gaining popularity."
Since those days Muslims have always been engaged in "battles". This war monger (Mohammed) comes along, tells the Jews to accept him as their Prophet - they laugh at him knowing very well his record as a looter, woman grabber, child marrying, raping, slave trading self proclaimed "last" prophet. The Christians had a hard time accepting him as equal to the passive Jesus they knew. Mohammed later purges (ethnic cleansing) Mecca of all its Christians and Jews, to this day they practice apartheid in Mecca. There is so much contradiction in this HSNKHWJ's posts that only a Muslim mind can process. It’s no wonder that wherever there is Islam there is ignorance.

Arif

When there is so much violence by Muslims every day in some part of the world, can it really be called religion of peace?

arif2 said,
"Since then that child’s descendents (Muslims) and the descendents of the legitimate child (Jews) have been at each others throats. Israel and Gaza what a mess, two brothers loath each other, one builds a wall to keep the other out. One is poor and the other rich one is dumb... "

indeed... the rest of us are unwilling extras, sometimes antagonists, in the judeochrislamic (they're really three sects of one religion) tragic opera being played out on earth.

arif2,
that's funny. i didn't know muslims had a shrine they thought was actually built by abraham! he's too far back in the past (~2000 bc?) to be factual. archaeologically speaking, the ancient israelite version of ancient mesopotamian history begins to be true only AFTER solomon's empire (with king "omri" in the 800s bc), and really starts to "line up" with mainstream archaeological theories in the 700s when the assyrians attacked.

a another dangerous thing about islam is that i think (i can't find stats on this) more muslims are literalists than christians are. i know in the u.s. we have a lot of literalists (earth is 6000 years old, no evolution etc...), but i still don't think it's as high as the muslim percentage.

literalism is very dangerous with a 1000s-of-years-old text.

PART I

hsnkhwj's words of wisdom: "Muhammad migrated to Medina for the pagans wanted to kill him for preaching monotheism. There were 360 gods (idols) in Kaaba at that time"
Why wouldn't anyone want to kill this man?
Mohammed not only sacked the Kafirs but he also took their place of worship, the Kaaba from them AND desecrated all their 360 gods; why? Why did he not build his own temple to allah? Why did he have to snatch the Kafirs sacred sanctuary? This is similar to what the Taliban did to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Mohammed your prophet did not respect others faith and since then little mohammeds have been following his actions. Also, the Kaaba was NOT built by Abraham, there is no proof of that.
Abraham was probably mythical; he’s a Jewish Character nonetheless who was a poor Sheppard. His character too is a disgrace, he had a child out of wedlock, and he then abandons that child with the mother. Since then that child’s descendents (Muslims) and the descendents of the legitimate child (Jews) have been at each others throats. Israel and Gaza what a mess, two brothers loath each other, one builds a wall to keep the other out. One is poor and the other rich one is dumb...

Arif

maybe it was too long... here it is in three parts, posted "backwards" so as to be easier to read continuously...

PART 0
_________________________________________

hsnkhwj,
i appreciate your giving me scriptural back-up for your statements. but i thought you were going to explain why “abrogation” is not a valid interpretive doctrine. you just asserted that it wasn't, then went on to quote some good verses. it is STILL my contention that the “good verses” you quote were (or, can be if needed) abrogated, i.e., superseded, by later bad verses.

**for those interested, here’s list of the koran chapters in chronological order: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Quran **

the koran itself allows contradictory interpretations. verses 6:34, 6:115, and 18:27 say you can’t change a verse, whereas 2:106 and 16:101 say you can:

2:106:
PICKTHAL: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?

16:101:
PICKTHAL: And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.

i chose the "pickthal" translation, but yusufali’s and others are similar. this shows that the koran itself allows (requires?) abrogation. note also that since chapters 2 and 16 come after 6 and 18, chronologically, according to the doctrine of abrogation, the doctrine of abrogation abrogates the verses from chapters 6 and 18. i know this is circular reasoning, but it’s the kind of thing religious scholars do.

PART 1
_________________________________

islamic scholars and commentators (authors of the hadith) DO disagree about abrogation: (http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam and http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrineprint.htm )

this fact allows at least some muslims, with scriptural justification, to use that horrible chapter 9, the second-to-last chapter written, especially 9:5, to be mean to non-muslims.

9:5:
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

9:13-14:
PICKTHAL: Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers. Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.

(the “solemn pledge” here is the pledge to be muslim...)

9:29:
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

9:73:
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.

9:123:
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

PART 2
_________________________________________
so, the “good verses” (“no complulsion”, “let him who please disbelieve”, “argue with them in the best manner” etc....), in the minds of enough muslims that it’s a problem, are abrogated by “bad verses” like the above-referenced ones and others like:

47:4:
PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

8:12:
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

4:89:
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.

these "bad verses" came after the "good" verses you quote. so at best they represent simple contradictions and at worst they are calls to outer jihad.

you talk about muslims “fair” treatment of “people the book” (jews and christians). “people of the book” are NOT treated as equals. they are subdued citizens, dhimmis, kind of like a lower-class indian caste. this is to say nothing of garden-variety pagans, polytheists and atheists – who are to be driven off or killed. such is the 7th century bigotry captured in the koran that muslims are to distinguish between “kinds” of non-muslims.... that muslims put up with the existence of people of the book is supposed to represent tolerance?! sheesh...

the presence of these horrible sentiments (which are very much in line with the old testament, and present though toned-down in the new testament) are evidence enough that the koran (and other judeochrislamic scripture) IS NOT inspired by god - at least not by any god worthy of worship.

it's true there are many muslims who don't behave intolerantly. they do this by ignoring the "bad parts" and living by the "good parts" of the koran. this is very enlightened and laudable. i guess we should be pleased by the results of a recent (~2005?) pew poll showing that "only" 20% of muslims in america support suicide (should be "religious homicide, actually) bombing.... the percentages were much higher overseas.

and what are we to make of “taqiyya”?

moderator,
i just tried (twice) to post my (perfectly polite) response to hsnkhwj, but it was "held by the moderator". what's up?

hsnkhwj,
thanks very much for the reply. i will take a good look at it and get back to you soon.

I'm glad to see you, back, Mr. Ahmad, I know it's pretty thankless to speak here sometimes, but I think behind all this, we here in America feel deeply for the people subject to religious oppression and perversion of what some hold most dear. (Even if they're trying to pull it with less guns and more money and words even here)

You say this:

"The Taliban hordes now sit dangerously close to Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, and many both inside and outside the country fear that they are poised to possess the souls of a nation of 173 million."

I say, remember that no one, no *thing* can do that, no book, no flag, no army, no fear. Not for long, anyway. What these types seek to impose may be destructive, but never lasts, and what they seek to conquer and control is far more patient.

Souls are not given to them to own. If there's nothing else we who are free people under the light of Liberty's torch can do, we can *remember* that for them, even if they themselves may chance to forget, for a while.

PART IV:

In short — based on the Quran and the Sunnah, the practices of the Pious Caliphs, and the writings of Muslim jurists — non-Muslims, living in an Islamic state, are entitled to: (1) right to life, personal safety, and respect; (2) freedom of religion; (3) right to justice and equality before law; (4) freedom of expression; (5) right to political representation; (6) freedom of movement, assembly, and association; (7) right to education; (8) right to social security; (9) right to property; (10) right to government service; (11) right to exemption from compulsory military service; etc. Here it must be mentioned that it is incumbent upon an Islamic state to grant to its non-Muslim citizens all these rights and freedoms regardless of rights and freedoms accorded to or denied to Muslims living in non-Muslim states.

Islamic history shows that all the rights accorded to non-Muslims were actually implemented by Muslim governments. Non-Muslims were always allowed opportunities of growth similar to Muslims; talented non-Muslims were greatly honoured and given high offices. Muslims can also take just pride in the fact that, unlike other civilisations, Islamic one cannot be accused of conducting forced conversions, witch hunts, inquisitions and holocausts. In fact, Muslim territories often served as refuge for non-Muslims facing oppression and persecution in other places.

Spain, under Muslim rule, was the only place in Europe where Jews could live with absolute safety and dignity. After the fall of Muslim Spain, Jews were expelled from there, and they found a sanctuary in another Muslim realm, i.e., the Ottoman Empire. Muslim India is another example. Despite centuries of Muslim rule, majority of its population remained non-Muslim. It is a well known fact that Muslim rulers even made generous donations to temples and other religious places of Hindus, etc. It is also interesting to note that, according to Al-Maqrizi, all the famous churches of Cairo were built during the Muslim rule.

PART III:

There are numerous sayings of the Prophet emphasising that non-Muslims living in an Islamic state — legally called “dhimmi” — must be treated well and their rights must be protected by the state as well as Muslim members of the community: “Whoever hurts a dhimmi, hurts me. And whoever hurts me, he annoys Allah.” (Bukhari) “Beware! On the Day of Judgment, I shall myself be the complainant against him who wrongs a dhimmi, or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear, or deprives him of anything that belongs to him.” (Al-Mawardi)

The teachings of the Quran and the examples set by the Prophet were not only followed by the Pious Caliphs, but also by later caliphs, rulers, and administrators. In 638, when Jerusalem was first conquered by Muslims, Caliph Omar Bin Khattab, who is considered to be the strictest of the Pious Caliphs, made this declaration regarding its Christian inhabitants: “I grant them security of lives, their possessions, their children, their churches, their crosses, and all that belongs to them... Their churches shall not be impoverished, nor destroyed; neither endowments, nor their dignity... Neither shall the inhabitants of Jerusalem be exposed to violence in following their religion; nor shall one of them be injured.”

Once, Caliph Omar came across an old man begging for alms. On inquiry, Omar came to know that the man was a Jew. He ordered that the Jew be paid regular amount from the state treasury, saying, “Is it right to take jizya from him as a young man, and neglect him as an old man? This is not possible in Islam!” Jizya is the tax collected from non-Muslim citizens. However, the amount of jizya is much less than zakat. Also, it is only collected from able-bodied non-Muslim males who can afford to pay it. Non-Muslims, if they ae in need, have the right to be supported by the state treasury.

PART IV to follow

PART II:
Islam not only acknowledges all the previous prophets and messengers, like Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, etc., and all the previous revelations, like the Torah, the Psalms, etc., but it goes a step further: Muslims have been strictly forbidden in the Quran from using any insulting remarks about any deity worshipped by any non-Muslim: “And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah...” (Quran, 6: 109) Can there be a more decisive proof of the marvelously tolerant nature of Islam?

The Sunnah too is abundant in injunctions that instruct Muslims to be considerate and courteous towards non-Muslims. The charter granted by the Prophet to the Christians of Mount Sinai is one of the glorious examples of tolerance and pluralism: “This is a message from Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily, I, the servants and helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and, by Allah, I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them; neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries.

“No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil Allah’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. Muslims are to fight for them... Their churches are to be respected... No one of the nation (of Islam) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day.”

When a deputation of the Christians of Najran came to see the Prophet, he not only allowed them to stay in his mosque, but they were also allowed to pray in the mosque according to their beliefs. The Prophet also granted them a charter similar to the one mentioned above: “...To the Christians of Najran and the neighbouring territories, the security of Allah and the pledge of His Prophet are extended for their lives, their religion, and their property... There shall be no interference with their faith or their observances, nor any change in their rights and privileges... They shall continue to enjoy everything great or small as heretofore...”

Walter-In-Fallscurch: Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Here are some excerpts from an article I read. It will be in two parts:

PART I:

"In fact, tolerance is an essential religious and legal obligation imposed upon the Muslims. Though Muslims have been instructed to spread Islam by way of preaching; however, while preaching Islam or engaging in religious dialogues with non-Muslims, Muslims have been told to employ the most respectful and polite methods: “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner...” (Quran, 16: 125) And if the non-Muslims incline to disagree with the message of Islam, despite all the arguments and logic produced by the Muslims, the latter are still not to resort to any form of religious compulsion or violent reaction.

God declares: “There is no compulsion in religion...” (Quran, 2: 256) “But if they dispute with thee, say: I submit myself entirely to Allah and (so does) he who follows me. And say to those who have been given the Book and the Unlearned (people): Do you submit yourselves? If they submit, then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, thy duty is only to deliver the message...” (Quran, 3: 19)

“And if thy lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?” (Quran, 10; 99) “And say: The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve...” (Quran, 18: 29) These verses clearly establish: (1) Islam denounces forced-conversion; and (2) Islam does not enjoin Muslims to wage war for the spread of faith.

Not only Muslims are prohibited from forcing Islam on non-Muslims, they have also been ordered to deal with them in a just and kind manner: “Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers.” (Quran, 60: 8,9)

hsnkhwj,
are you saying earlier verses are not superseded by later verses?

yes, i know about dhimmitude - it's really lovely that "people of the book" are allowed to live amongst muslims as long as they "behave" submissively and hide their religion so as not to offend muslims. that's not MY idea of tolerance.

i didn't notice a "good" verse in your post. still looking? - and as you say context is indeed very important.

i haven't even broached islam's treatment of women, but feel free to go there if you dare.

walter-in-fallschurch :

There is no such thing as abrogation in Koran. Your ignorance is appaling for you keep paroting the same question again and again.

Koran is a collection of messages brought to Muhammad over 22 years reflecting day-to-day events of the time. Each verse must be read IN THE CONTEXT IT ARRIVED AT A GIVEN TIME.

Muhammad migrated to Medina for the pagans wanted to kill him for preaching monotheism. There were 360 gods (idols) in Kaaba at that time.

Initially the Jews and the Christians supported him for his message of ONE God originally preached by Abraham.

When Muhammad conquered Kaaba back from the Pagans, he declared general amnesty.

Later, there were battles between Muslims and Jews and Christians because Islam was gaining popularity.

The verses in Koran against Jews or Christians are related to battle conditions of particular days.

There is no blanket condemnation of Judaism or Christianity. On the contrary, Jews and Christians are called "The people of the Book" and Muslims are required to respect those monotheistic religions.

One basic principle in Islam has always been not to initiate aggression. It has always advocated the principle of "SELF DEFENSE". If somebody tries to take away your property from you or harms you or your community physically, you have a right to defend yourself.

Hope you don't repeat the crap of abrogation.

i think we should applaud mr. ahmad for posting here. he must know he will be criticised, but maybe is hoping to "mediate" between islam and the west.

in that spirit, i'm hoping he will answer my question below about non-superseded koranic verses about tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion and self-determination.

Members of the Taliban are willing to lay down their lives for what they believe, even to the point of wearing a suicide vest. What is Mr. Ahmad willing to do to defend his interpretation of Islam?

Embedded deeply in the Islamic psyche is denial - and through this they will be prevented from moving forward - Firstly to conquer India - i.e. to bring Islam to its shores 80-100 million Hindus and Buddhists - were killed.

And two - although Muslims for the most part wish to live settled lives - the call to Jihad has always been there - the Prophet Muhammed fought many wars - specifically to bring the Arab lands under his new religious vision - I say 'new vision' - because he simply altered the former Arabian Kaaba religion - removing the Gods and Goddesses that were beneath Allah - leaving 'No God But Allah' - what is worst Muslims are proud of the battles Muhammed fought -

And here lies the problem - the Taliban are a little too proud - and are endeavouring to re-invent the life and conditions of the Prophet - and it is hard to argue with them as most of these recruits come straight out of Pakistan's - Saudi funded madrasas - where the Koran is committed to memory.

Saying that 'it is no compulsion to Islam' - is almost an insult to the intelligence of anyone who regularly follows the news coming out of Egypt, Malaysia, Algeria, Pakistan or Iran - where it is a crime to leave Islam - and imprisonment and torture are almost a given along with having your travel restricted.

I put it to you that Muslims do for the most part turn a blind eye - the repression of non-Muslims and apostates among them - more - while they complain about Islamophobia in the West (as westerners dare to criticize Islam - something punishable by death in many parts of the Islamic world), in the Islamic world Christians, Buddhists and minority Islamic sects such as Baha'is - are denied state education (Egypt/Iran), regularly hulled in for Blasphemy against Islam (Pakistan), have their places of worship burnt down (Indonesia 200 plus in the last three years), but for Muslims the west - where freedom of religion is allowed and mosques are built and conversions allowed - is the real problem.

The most unpalatable thing for Muslims - and the supporters of Islam (whatever it does) - is that the Taliban is Islam - also.

While the West admits its checkered past - Muslims deny theirs ever existed - or put their history of the sword down to God's will - that's why they are doomed to repeat the same patterns - of radicalization and re-radicalization - for God - again and again.

"And the brand the Taliban wish to sell is not one the people of Pakistan have any interest in buying."

Who says the Taliban are selling anything? They're not...they are forcing it at the point of a bayonet. They don't care what you think Salman. In fact they will kill you when they find you because you play 'rock music.' You know this is true. If you aren't willing to beat them back...don't make us fight your battles for you. This is Islam's problem. Moslems must fix it. Let us know how it turns out...but quit trying to explain it away.

salman ahmad,

thanks for giving one "good" statement from the koran. sura 2:256 is a verse from the first book written from medina. i'm afraid things go downhill from there. i'm sure you know about "abrogation." (suras 2:106 & 16:101) it is my understanding of these verses that earlier verses are superseded by later ones, and all the "slay idolators" stuff is in the later medina verses...

now i believe individuals who happen to be muslim share the innate desires for peace, love and harmony, but,

HELP!!!!

i've been asking this question over and over (apologies to those who've seen it) on various threads, but still no answer:

are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...?

please, i would really like to know.