Is Islam actually peaceful?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Yes, I find it quite disturbing, that a religion that says it is for tolerance and peace, only does so when required.

Good! What, would you prefer pre-emption? When do you prescribe intolerance... never? Should a civilian or police, who will claim they are for tolerance and peace, turn a blind eye when a crime is committed? Should they judge and pre-empt their neighbors? Or should they only be intolerant when it is just?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Yet, in countries where Islam is the norm, and Sharia is the law of the land, all other religions are persecuted. Islam, in its purest form, is very intolerant of other faiths.

False. Islam means submission to the will of God (swt). That is a choice for the individual to make, not society. In truth whoever persecutes to drive people towards Allah (swt) drives them further away. Whoever persecutes demands submission to them rather than to Allah (swt). People who think the majority opinion defines Islam are the ones who are wrong, and leave you with the perception otherwise. Islam is as much for you as it is for anyone else.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

And Islam wonders why nobody else will trust it, that nobody else believes what they say? Actions speak louder than words. The actions of Muslims speak louder than any verses they may quote, or any lies that are told.

Are you asking for action or debate? Voicing a word is an action. Replace the word Islam with 'God' (swt) and review your sentence. People may have added to the meaning but then they are in the wrong. Replace the word Muslim with 'One who submits to the will of God'.

A famous person in the last century said:

The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press -- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years.

Should I judge the teaching of Jesus Christ (pbuh) by him? Should I associate Christianity with him and his 'nation'?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Who has greater freedom: the Christian in a Muslim nation, or the Muslim in a Christian nation?

Who defined the nation? God (swt)? The disciples who followed Christ were Muslim, so... some definitions to some words have clearly altered in scope. Maybe people like that famous person above were a cause of that?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Saying, and doing, are two different things.

Yes, judging and condemning are two different things.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

When Christians and Muslims both figure this out, the world will be better off. As long as there are those who cheer for the suffering of others, there will be troubles in the world.

... as long as people lie to each other there will be suffering.
... as long as people do not place faith in each other there will be suffering.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The saddest part to the whole story, is that Islam does know how to co-exist... Where has this Islam gone?

Again, replace the word Islam with God (swt). He is as present today as he was back then. Be careful with words.

[juantoo3]

Wow, I don't recall a time since I have been here that my comments have drawn such fire!

Let me say, I have always admired Islam as a beautiful religion of truth and logic. I admire that. What I see in practice though, is that Muslims often turn that truth and logic on other religions, in an attempt to undermine them. These same Muslims however, for whatever reason known by them, refuse to turn their own truth and logic to look at themselves. Any who do so, Muslim or not, immediately have their character and motivations called into question. They are called infidels, or worse. Often they are threatened with their lives. Rushdie comes to mind. And the cartoons of Mohammed.

Now, I find this disturbing. My response was in reply to a young person who claimed no former Muslims who converted to Christianity were under threat of death for converting. To which I brought forward a number of quotes to show the recent episode involving Abdul Rahman. In those quotes are people of power, a judge and an Imam, in a Sharia country (specifically Afghanistan) stating explicitly that if this man were to be freed to go home, the Imam would incite his followers to kill him, and the judge would if allowed to put this man on trial, level a death penalty. Both quoted Mohammed as their reasons why. This is found in the "rules" thread.

These are not "average, everyday" guys on the street saying this, these are people who hold power and influence the masses, telling the world Mohammed calls for the execution of any non-Muslims.

This is not an isolated incident. It is well known that Christian missionaries are not welcome in Muslim countries. And not just Christians, Jews take their lives into their hands to travel through a Muslim country, let alone try to live. And what of the ancient Buddhist carvings on the mountain in Afghanistan that were destroyed simply because they were not Islamic inspired. These were national treasures!

Yes, I reacted emotionally to a deliberate challenge to my faith. So I deliberately challenge Muslims to answer, by looking at themselves. We know Muslims are capable of looking with logic and reason at others. They refuse to look at themselves! When any other looks at them openly, such as I dare to do, they are castigated. Indeed, I cannot help but wonder if someone somewhere would love nothing more than to put me on their "hit list" because I dared speak the truth!

If Christians are Muslims, why are they persecuted in Sharia nations by law, for no more crime than being Christian? Muslims are not persecuted in Christian nations, certainly not by law. A former Christian who converts to Islam is not threatened with his very life for doing so, or called heretic or infidel by the state. The law in Christian nations does not threaten those who convert with their lives! The priests and preachers and rabbis do not "… call on the people to pull him to pieces."

Islam can play nice, and co-exist with others. It is evident in places where Islam is not the dominant political player. In these instances, Islam must play nice to survive. At the same time, they are guests. I do not see that same hospitality extended to others who *live* in Sharia nations by law and custom (with rare, conditional exceptions, like oil workers in Saudi, who live in segregated compounds), (tourists do not count, everybody fleeces them). One need only look at Darfur to see what it is I am getting at. Do Muslims deny this as well?

If all of the people of the book are Muslims, then Sharia Muslims spend a considerable amount of time teaching "killing the whole of mankind." Denial of this is not truth, and is not logical. Casting doubt upon me personally does not do away with this truth or this logic.

I cannot, and *do not*, paint all Muslims with one brush. I hold each to their own actions, just as I do anybody else. When the dominant attitude among a given people is hatred towards any not like them, persecuting for following the same G-d by a different path, culturally discriminating and acting prejudicially complete with lynching, something is not right. Are we in the west to believe that whole Sharia nations are misinterpreting Islam? What if Islam became the dominant faith in America, and Sharia became the law of the land (as I am sure the hope of many Muslims is a world of Sharia)? Would Christians and Jews, and Buddhists and Hindis, and Native Americans, and any others, become subject to death for their beliefs?

Or, are we in the west to just lay idly by and believe everything we are told because someone, however well intended, tells us something that contradicts what we see?

Shifting the subject onto Christianity is to avoid the subject at hand in this thread. There are plenty of threads dealing with the conflicts in Christianity. Why is it so difficult to discuss with Muslims the conflicts in Islam?

I do apologize, if somehow my comments are taken as prejudicial towards the whole of Islam. I do not apologize for speaking truth. G-d demands it of me, as G-d does of others as well. Including Muslims.

[Zaakir]

not being a muslim for long, the thing i find the greatest about it, is the love and sincerity dedicated to Allah (s.w.t) whether or not some muslims maybe intolerant or not, only Allah (s.w.t) can deicide and judge them.i personally disagree with a lot of the things going on as do all of the muslim people i know,but what can we do especially when were getting called terrorists aswell.most of these actions that occur that i dont agree with, are happening in the east, maybe it is because of an ignorance, maybe a wrong learning?but i think it is unjust to call all muslims, when compared to the number of our religion, there will be literally a handfull that carry out such actions

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

My response was in reply to a young person who claimed no former Muslims who converted to Christianity were under threat of death for converting. To which I brought forward a number of quotes to show the recent episode involving Abdul Rahman.

Unfortunately, those who insist on the execution of apostates draw their support from the second most authentic book in Sunni Islam. The Hadiths of Sahih Al-Bukhari.

Most Sunni Muslims wouldn't question the authenticity of these Hadith collections, but at the same time are unaware of it's contents.
Salafi Muslims do not question the authenticity of Sahih Al-Bukhari.
Shias however, do not revere these Hadith collections as Sunnis do, because they consider the nature of some of these Hadiths to be unislamic.

The following Hadiths are used in support of executing apostates:

1. Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

2. Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:

Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

3. Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 577:

Narrated 'Ali:
I heard the Prophet saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection."

Shiite Muslims reject the authenticity of Sahih Al-Bukhari, often because they consider some of the Hadiths to be ridiculous, and because much of the collections is traced back to Aisha (who was an enemy of the Shias) and Abu Hurairah (who was allegedly flogged for fabricating Hadiths).

A lot of liberal Muslims in the West will reject such Hadiths, amongst others that they find unacceptable. But the majority view of the Muslim scholars at Al-Azhar and Medina, is that Sahih Al-Bukhari ONLY contains Sahih (Righteous) Hadiths.

Also Muslims who follow the views of Rashid Khalaf reject ALL Hadiths, they believe that Muhammad ONLY came with the Qur'an, and everything outside of the Qur'an is likely to be fabrication.


.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Zaakir!

Originally Posted by Zaakir

not being a muslim for long, the thing i find the greatest about it, is the love and sincerity dedicated to Allah (s.w.t) whether or not some muslims maybe intolerant or not, only Allah (s.w.t) can deicide and judge them.i personally disagree with a lot of the things going on as do all of the muslim people i know,but what can we do especially when were getting called terrorists aswell.most of these actions that occur that i dont agree with, are happening in the east, maybe it is because of an ignorance, maybe a wrong learning?but i think it is unjust to call all muslims, when compared to the number of our religion, there will be literally a handfull that carry out such actions

Absolutely agreed! I have been very careful not to call anybody a terrorist. I have deliberately avoided that subject. Angry young men exist in every modern culture. I do not in any way think of Muslims as terrorists.

What I have been trying to get at deals more with the fundamental disconnect between what we are told by peaceful, well-meaning Muslims in the west, and what we see as cultural norms in places like Afghanistan, Saudi, Yemen, Iran. Places that are culturally Islamic, places where Islam is the norm and Sharia is the law of the land.

I would not think to call these nations terrorist. That is not the purpose behind my posts. I am simply wondering why Sharia nations have such a strict cultural prejudice against other faiths?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Aburaees!

Thank you! This goes a very long way towards understanding.

Originally Posted by aburaees

Unfortunately, those who insist on the execution of apostates draw their support from the second most authentic book in Sunni Islam. The Hadiths of Sahih Al-Bukhari.

Most Sunni Muslims wouldn't question the authenticity of these Hadith collections, but at the same time are unaware of it's contents.
Salafi Muslims do not question the authenticity of Sahih Al-Bukhari.
Shias however, do not revere these Hadith collections as Sunnis do, because they consider the nature of some of these Hadiths to be unislamic.

Shiite Muslims reject the authenticity of Sahih Al-Bukhari, often because they consider some of the Hadiths to be ridiculous, and because much of the collections is traced back to Aisha (who was an enemy of the Shias) and Abu Hurairah (who was allegedly flogged for fabricating Hadiths).

A lot of liberal Muslims in the West will reject such Hadiths, amongst others that they find unacceptable. But the majority view of the Muslim scholars at Al-Azhar and Medina, is that Sahih Al-Bukhari ONLY contains Sahih (Righteous) Hadiths.

Also Muslims who follow the views of Rashid Khalaf reject ALL Hadiths, they believe that Muhammad ONLY came with the Qur'an, and everything outside of the Qur'an is likely to be fabrication.

OK. It has long been my understanding that the Koran was used pretty much exclusively. Now I see, not unlike some other Monotheist faiths, that "commentaries" also play a part in interpretation. Perhaps it could be said the New Testament is also a kind of commentary, one that has been codified for all Christians. Whereas it seems the Hadiths are more..."denominational" or "sectarian." Perhaps this helps in understanding why some sects may be more quick to justify violence while other sects seem to strive to avoid it? Please help my understanding.

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Aburaees!

Thank you! This goes a very long way towards understanding.
OK. It has long been my understanding that the Koran was used pretty much exclusively. Now I see, not unlike some other Monotheist faiths, that "commentaries" also play a part in interpretation. Perhaps it could be said the New Testament is also a kind of commentary, one that has been codified for all Christians. Whereas it seems the Hadiths are more..."denominational" or "sectarian." Perhaps this helps in understanding why some sects may be more quick to justify violence while other sects seem to strive to avoid it? Please help my understanding.

Agreed. The Qur'an is the only literature that is universally accepted by Muslims. The Hadiths are the source of all of Islam's divisions, excepting the civil war that resulted from the disagreement over Muhammad's successors.

However the Hadiths are pretty much all "attributed" to Muhammad, some falsely and others truely, and any command issued by Muhammad is (according to Qur'an) equivalent to being from God himself.

.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Aburaees!

Thank you for being bold enough to speak to this issue!

However the Hadiths are pretty much all "attributed" to Muhammad, some falsely and others truely, and any command issued by Muhammad is (according to Qur'an) equivalent to being from God himself.

If I understand correctly, the conflicts within Islam then are not over the Koran, but over Hadith interpretations of the Koran?

How do the Hadiths justify persecution of other faiths, especially the other people of the Book?

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Aburaees!

Thank you for being bold enough to speak to this issue!


If I understand correctly, the conflicts within Islam then are not over the Koran, but over Hadith interpretations of the Koran?

Not all Hadiths are interpretations of the Qur'an, some are, but others are rulings and practices that were prescribed by Muhammad but not revealed to Muhammad as Qur'anic verse.

I'm not sure if this is correct but you could say that the 10 Commandments were written by God himself on tablets (in OT), the remaining 600+ Commandments were authored by Moses who was an authority on behalf of God.

The same with the Qur'an, they were the words of God himself, but the Hadiths were the words of Muhammad who was an authority on behalf of God.

There are Hadiths giving commands on how to "go to the bathroom", but this is not mentioned in the Qur'an.

The Qur'anic verses commanding war and peace are commented on in the Hadiths, putting each in it's respective time-frame. The most peaceful verses were revealed in Mecca whilst the Muslim community was still small and unable to defend itself. The war verses were revealed later in Medina, by which time the Muslim community had become substantial.

Another thing mentioned in Hadiths is the false messiah (Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal), who is not even hinted at in the Qur'an (as far as I know). It is said that he would lead the Jewish nation against the Muslim nation, and many Muslims see the current events in Israel/Palestine as leading up to his arrival - hence the reason why Hamas and the like aren't ever likely to give up violence.

As a final note, there are some differences which a purely down to human interpretation of the Qur'an - especially Islamic Tawhid (the nature of God's monotheism).

.

[bananabrain]

yeah, the dajjal - i wonder, if this is a bona fide doctrine of islam, if you don't consider it just a teensy bit conducive to disharmony? i mean, isn't this basically defining "the jewish nation" as a threat and an enemy to "the muslim nation"? i can't see interfaith dialogue being conducted in an environment where this idea is accepted, any more than i can see it being conducted in an environment where jews are considered to be "christ-killers" or in need of "salvation".

gah.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

yeah, the dajjal - i wonder, if this is a bona fide doctrine of islam, if you don't consider it just a teensy bit conducive to disharmony? i mean, isn't this basically defining "the jewish nation" as a threat and an enemy to "the muslim nation"? i can't see interfaith dialogue being conducted in an environment where this idea is accepted, any more than i can see it being conducted in an environment where jews are considered to be "christ-killers" or in need of "salvation".

gah.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Agreed, but the Hadiths mentioned are considered to be authentic by the vast majority of Sunni Muslims - who in my opinion are more interested in interfaith 'monologue'.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

This is why violence will continue to be perpetuated by Hamas and the like. And this Hadith is found in most Islamic "End-Times" literature readily available in UK Islamic bookstores.

Most Sunni Muslims don't dare to question the contents of Sahih Al-Bukhari, unfortunately, since they're not confident that these Hadiths aren't genuinely from Muhammad.

.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Wil!

Originally Posted by wil

In the US that is called a protection racket. I am making an observation here. Surely there is a less obtrusive way to convert folks to Islam?

Therein lies a fundamental difficulty: why the need for conversion? While it is true that Christians do seek to convert others, it is not mandatory. On an individual or perhaps denominational level there may be some condescending attitude levelled towards those who will not convert, but at a national level this is hardly so. Even such a condescending attitude does not typically result in a state sanctioned death penalty. Lynchings, a rare but known occurance, are not the result of government sanction, and are indeed against the law of the land, subject to criminal prosecution.

Quite the opposite, from what I have been able to glean, considering Sharia nations. There it seems that conversion to Islam is mandatory. While I was not aware of an alternative, the alternative hardly seems conducive to tolerance. When prejudice is institutionalized, such an attitude flows down to the level of the individual through the various cultural levels. In the case I mentioned, the prejudice towards Rahman was institutionalized; at the government, at the legal system, at the religious, and from there to the individual levels. In such an instance, there is nowhere to turn for blind justice. One's fate is foreordained. Unless one is Muslim, one is prejudicially treated. Last I checked, that is the essence of intolerance.

I am wondering what the Koranic justification is for such prejudicial behavior?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Aburaees!

Another thing mentioned in Hadiths is the false messiah (Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal), who is not even hinted at in the Qur'an (as far as I know). It is said that he would lead the Jewish nation against the Muslim nation, and many Muslims see the current events in Israel/Palestine as leading up to his arrival - hence the reason why Hamas and the like aren't ever likely to give up violence.

This goes a long way to explain a great deal.

[cyberpi]

There is a tendency to pull a few verses from the Qur'an or Hadith to support a viewpoint, add some interpretation and call for some type of action, or even make a law or fatwa out of it. Sound familiar? It should. Improved communication technology is integrating and speeding up that process. It is relevant to point out that the same behavior is in Judaism, Christianity, atheism, etc... but nowhere do I fnd that God (swt) teaches this, nor do I find any scientific measurement to suggest it is good. It is a behavior of people. It can be seen in children. By design (or evolution), people can only learn, process, communicate, and act on a small portion of information at a time.

A question is: Who is responsible? With religion people are trying to justify their actions with God (swt), the creator, the supreme source of many things. There is a desire in many people to be good, to be truthfully aligned with a god. Imagine if I took a few sentences from a person here on CR, maybe a person elevated by being elder, smart, pious, and a learned scholar. Suppose I take a few of his/her sentences and make or justify a law or action by them. Who then is responsible? The person who follows the law or carries out the action? Me, the one who led or misled by quoting the scholar? The scholar posting here on CR? The religion the scholar studies? Or ultimately... God (swt)? This thread hints at placing the responsibility on the religion, or the people who claim to follow the religion. To which I quickly say... fine, who wrote the religion? Danger, danger!

You don't need a religion to have the problem... a child's testimony, the news, political propaganda, lobbying... I find that this is the way many people communicate and think. Anyone who has been a leader or a celebrity knows what it is like to have people, the media quoting them, taking snapshots and characterizing them. With the information that the people provide, who do they truly represent? Who is responsible for an incomplete or false picture that they produce? Who is responsible for people who see, read and act on that picture?

As an example, lets study a modern example from Islam. I read on an Islamic web page (Sunnipath.com) yesterday a girl that asks if she can marry a person who it sounds like might be a believer, but is a free thinker. According to this online Islamic educational institute, a male can marry a Jew or a Christian, for example, but a female Muslim can only marry a Muslim. It is the divine equation for struggle and this website uses phrases like: 'Either he accepts Islam or he doesn't', 'Shaytan is trying to mislead you', 'the guiding light of Sacred Law', 'emphatically forbidden', 'divinely ordained patterns of married life'... basically (my words) it says that God (swt) wants females to marry only Muslim men and thus have only Muslim children.

Fine. Whether it is truth or lie, good advice or bad, I will restate the question: Who will be responsible for it? The person who takes it and acts on it? The website owner? The scholar who interpreted the belief? The person who enforces it as a law? The Qur'an? All adherents of the religion? God (swt)?

I assume I am responsible for what I say and in the same spirit of my post, here is a single Qur'an verse for consideration:
16:116 (Yusufali) But say not - for any false thing that your toungues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden." so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.

16:116 (Khalifa) You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: "This is lawful, and this is unlawful," to fabricate lies and attribute them to god. Surely those who fabricate lies and attribute them to god will never succeed.

[~:MOK:~]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Wil!

Therein lies a fundamental difficulty: why the need for conversion? While it is true that Christians do seek to convert others, it is not mandatory. On an individual or perhaps denominational level there may be some condescending attitude levelled towards those who will not convert, but at a national level this is hardly so. Even such a condescending attitude does not typically result in a state sanctioned death penalty. Lynchings, a rare but known occurance, are not the result of government sanction, and are indeed against the law of the land, subject to criminal prosecution.

Quite the opposite, from what I have been able to glean, considering Sharia nations. There it seems that conversion to Islam is mandatory. While I was not aware of an alternative, the alternative hardly seems conducive to tolerance. When prejudice is institutionalized, such an attitude flows down to the level of the individual through the various cultural levels. In the case I mentioned, the prejudice towards Rahman was institutionalized; at the government, at the legal system, at the religious, and from there to the individual levels. In such an instance, there is nowhere to turn for blind justice. One's fate is foreordained. Unless one is Muslim, one is prejudicially treated. Last I checked, that is the essence of intolerance.

I am wondering what the Koranic justification is for such prejudicial behavior?

Let me just ask you if you've ever lived in a nation governed by Sharia? I'm going to assume that you haven't but forgive me if you have. I have lived in Egypt, side by side with the Christians (20+ percent of the pop.) who, I can attest are not looked down upon, atleast in the area i lived in.

I will say that the majority of the population (this is a grotesque generalization, I hate generalizations) does seem a bit racist towards dark skin colour though, which is odd. Although I do feel like it is something every nation has encountered and will grow out of as the population matures.