I don't wish to insult anyone, I'm here to try to learn.

This Website describes Islam as "a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness".

However, I have just finished reading a book, which appears to demonstrate that Islam is fundamentally an intolerant and violent ideology. The book relies on and quotes only accepted Islamic texts such as the Qu'ran, Hadith and Sunna. It also argues (convincingly in my opinion) that Muhammad was a warlord and bandit who preached violence, ordered the assassinations of his enemies, and used his "divine revelations" for his personal self-aggrandizement.

I have checked the Islamic sources quoted in the book in own Qu'ran and on the Internet and found them to be accurate.

Further more, I recently had a discussion with a highly religious Muslim on flight from Moscow to the Middle East and was concerned with some of his views concerning the killing of apostates, cartoonists, Israelis, Salman Rushdie, infidels etc.

I've also looked at some of the posts on these discussion forums and concluded that many seem to point more towards a belief in violence, cruelty and hate, than in "peace, mercy, and forgiveness".

I look at the violent actions of so many Muslims in the world today and wonder whether their actions are the result of their religion.

Are there any books I can read that can convince me that Islam really is "a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness"?

Thanks for your reply Angela.

You suggest I read the Qu�ran. I have (in English) and found it to contain some very worrying passages.

If you�re saying that Muhammad�s revelations should be taken in the historical context of the time they were revealed then this would leave much of the Qu�ran open to wide interpretation (much like the Bible); and I believe that this would be a positive thing.

However, I would be surprised if many Muslims would agree with you about �context�. It seems that true Muslims actually believe in the Qu�ran as the literal word of God. It is their answer to every question; it is their ultimate source of guidance and such what the Qu�ran commands.

So I�d be very interested to hear from any Muslims who support with your opinion.

Angela, you haven�t addressed my concerns about the life of Muhammad. Even if his many intolerant, violent and even cruel deeds might seem more reasonable if considered in the historical context in which they happened, it still concerns me that many Muslims believe that they should live by Muhammad �s example. Violent Jihadists see themselves as following the example of Muhammad in word and deed.

You also suggest I read the Hadiths. I have read some that are so outrageous that I believe some Muslims doubt their reliability.

I�m interested Angela, you're a Christian: do you believe the Qu�ran to be, even in part, the word or will of your God?

Finally, I�d be interested to hear from any knowledgeable Muslims on the original question.

islamispeace wrote: Rezz, You say there are certain verses of the Quran and certain hadiths which "worry" you.  Well, lets bring them out.  Please make a list, and I as well as the other Muslims on this forum will be more than happy to help you understand.

Yes, that is a good idea.

BMZ

Angela wrote: Rezz, Since the basis of the Quranic teachings are belief in God, Prophets like Abraham and Moses and family.  Yes, I do believe there is divine inspiration, however, as a Christian I don't believe in the infalliblity or perfection in the Quran as would a Muslim.  If I did, then I would be Muslim.  This is why I point to things like context and environment where a Muslim might not.  Did you read that article I sent you? The ayahs that usually worry us the most are often taken out of context of the whole Surah.  We are talking about a faith in its infancy that is being persecuted and a region filled with War for millenniums before Muhammed and long after. What actions do you find particularly disturbing?  Stoning was a common punishment among, Jews, Christians and other peoples of that time period.  War was not only necessary, but unavoidable.  Slavery was culturally accepted throughout the entire world including among European Christians for centuries to come.  Under Muhammed, women were given inheritance rights, the right of divorce and rights of ownership over her property.  This was not extended to British women until the 19th Century.  And all they were required to do, was be faithful to their husbands and cover up.  Not a bad trade off if you ask me.  I certainly would have rather been a woman in Muhammed's time in Saudi Arabia than a woman in Muhammed's time in London. So, what exact Ayahs and actions most concern you?

 Very well said, Angela. Could not have written better. Thanks

BMZ

Hi Angela

Your answers always amaze me. I still find it difficult to believe that you are not a Muslim.

May Allah guide you soon Ameen!

Take Care

rami wrote: Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem Yep Real soon...Look into my eyes your getting sleepy...sleepy....Blam Bang WAM...Feel different angela??  Seriously though REZ, I am really a bad muslim as i am constantly ignoring Allah's command to kill infidels where ever i find them, last week i decided not to beat up the women in my family or invade the neighboring town and capture there women folk and make them my slaves, i also forgot to force them to become Muslims which reminds me i forgot to commit suicide at the local American embassy....If you like feel free to list the other things i forgot to do. With 1.4 billion muslims around the world who also are not practicing there faith what do you have to worry about.

 I am also a hopeless Muslim. Have not attacked or raped any infidel yet.    

BMZ

Angela wrote:   Yes, I do feel different.  My headache's gone.  LOL. But, seriously, thanks BMZ, Alwardah and Rami.

We have two sweet darlings on this board. One is you and the other is Angel. How nice if all could understand Islam and the Muslims like both of you do.

I have decided to refer all such queries from L-Posters to you!

Cheers

BMZ

Muslim posters are praising Angela, but do you really agree with her?

I�ve yet to have my second question addressed so I'll ask it clearly;

Do any Muslims agree with Angela�s view that Muhammad�s revelations should be taken in the historical �context� of the time they were revealed?

Thank you �islamispeace� for your kind offer;

�You say there are certain verses of the Quran and certain hadiths which "worry" you.  Well, lets bring them out.  Please make a list, and I as well as the other Muslims on this forum will be more than happy to help you understand.�

The book I read quoted dozens of examples.

I would like to put forward a Hadith, which I believe demonstrates excessive cruelty on the part of Muhammad.

Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")

The following Sura worries me as it appears to justify raping slaves:-

33:50 - English - English / Yusuf Ali

Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)

33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

These Suras also worry me as they don't seem to belong to �a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness?�

9:05 - M. Picktall

At-Tauba (The Repentance)

9:5 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. http://mediaserver.hadi.org:8080/ramgen/QuranEnglishAA/AA009-005.rm?mode=compact -

9:29 - Yusuf Ali

At-Tauba (The Repentance)

9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Angela, thanks for your reply, but yet again your point relies SOLELY on YOUR OWN, PERSONAL view that each Sura of the Qu�ran should be considered in the historical "context" of when it was revealed.

And I've already told you Angela, that I �believe that this would be a positive thing.�

But all this is moot, because the question here is �what do Muslims think?�

That question again:

�Do any Muslims agree with Angela�s view that Muhammad�s revelations should be taken in the historical �context� of the time they were revealed?�

Doesn't it demonstrates excessive cruelty on the part of Muhammad?

Muslim posters are praising Angela, but do you really agree with her?

Not entirely but unlike yourself we understand her answer in the context of her beliefe and for the most part she is right.

Do any Muslims agree with Angela�s view that Muhammad�s revelations should be taken in the historical �context� of the time they were revealed?

This is how it has been done for 1400 years otherwise Christians would all be dead and no trace of them or judaism, hinduism, buhdism just to name a few would exist on earth today. I think you should use your common sense in light of obvious worldly facts, well unless you dont know that an islamic empire stretching from north africa to china existed for the better part of 1400 years.

I would like to put forward a Hadith, which I believe demonstrates excessive cruelty on the part of Muhammad.

CL: If an idolater burns a Muslim, should he be burned?

2855. It is related from Anas ibn Malik that a group of eight men from 'Ukl came to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and became ill due to the climate of Madina. They said, "Messenger of Allah, give us some milk." He said, "I only think that you should join the herd." So they went and drink their urine and milk until they were cured and fat, and then they killed the herdsman and drove away the camels and rejected after their Islam. The cry for help reached the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he sent people to pursue them. The sun was not yet high when they were brought. He ordered that their hands and feet cut off and nails were driven in their eyes and they were cast out into al-Harra'. They asked for water but none was given to them until they died.

Abu Qilaba said, "They murdered and stole and and fought against Allah and His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and strived to work corruption in the land."

http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0061.aspx - http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0061.aspx

The following Sura worries me as it appears to justify raping slaves:-

33:50 - English - English / Yusuf Ali

Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)

All this was condoning was natural relations as a husband would with his his wife its even revealed in that context, the rape is your assumption based on your disposition which i am now clarifying. this verse or part of it may also be subject to abrogation by other revelations, but im not versed in the Islamic science of Abrogation so i cant comment.

These Suras also worry me as they don't seem to belong to �a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness?�

9:05 - M. Picktall

At-Tauba (The Repentance)

9:5

Well as i said 1400 years and it seems muslims dont read the Quran, or we could take the rationale approach and understand it to mean that muslims dont understand these verses outside the context of there original revelation.
http://mediaserver.hadi.org:8080/ramgen/QuranEnglishAA/AA009-005.rm?mode=compact -

9:29 - Yusuf Ali

At-Tauba (The Repentance)

Go to http://www.tafsir.com/ - http://www.tafsir.com/ which is the Tafsir [contextual explanation of the Quran, in this instance] of Ibn Kathir [a famous muslim scholar] and look it up, it is by no means definitive or well translated but it does help immensely in light the questions you have presented.

http://www.muslimheritage.com/" class="l" onmousedown="return rwtthis,'','','res','1','AFQjCNHtjeps04BTMzO4AdXNPMT5E5P5Aw','&sig2=tkX2VYbwS_QAsz1M6RYM1w' - MuslimHeritage.com - Discover 1000 Years of Missing History

"Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")"

Regardless of whether you feel that the punishment was "cruel", what does this hadith prove about Islam's "inherent violence"?   The individuals who were punished were murderers, were they not?  Are you against the death penalty?  If you find this hadith to be "worrying" then surely you also find the US Justice System "worrying" as well, since it too implements the death penalty, although in a different way. 

The following Sura worries me as it appears to justify raping slaves:-

33:50 - English - English / Yusuf Ali

Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)

33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful."

The issue of concubines has drawn much fire from Islamophobes.  First of all, it is important to understand when it was lawful for Muslims to take concubines.  The answer is only during a war, which can only be fought when Muslims are attacked first.  Second, it is interesting that elsewhere in the Quran, Allah (swt) says the following:

By the way, Rezz, are you a Christian?  The reason I ask is because if you are, you certainly that the Hebrew prophets also had concubines (by the hundreds).  Do you find that "worrying" as well?

9:5 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." http://mediaserver.hadi.org:8080/ramgen/QuranEnglishAA/AA009-005.rm?mode=compact -

Angela refuted your concerns with this verse.  The question now is since the book you read mentioned this verse as "cause for concern", did it present this verse in its proper context?  In other words, did it present the verse along with verses 1-4 and verses 6-7, or just by itself?  In its proper context, the verse does not call for a "holy war" against the "infidels", rather it is referring to a specific group of people:

"1 A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

2 Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.

3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

7 How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous." (At-Tauba, v.1-7)

In addition, I also would like to ask you whether the book you read mentioned the historical context of these verses.  Does it mention when the verse were revealed?  If not, let me enlighten you, as the source you rely on fails to do so.  These verses were revealed roughly 2 years after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, in which the Muslims signed a peace treaty with the pagans of Mecca, with whom they had been in a state of war for a few years.  The treaty called for a ten year truce, but it was broken when a tribe allied to the Meccans attacked and murdered several people from a tribe allied to the Muslims.  This was a violation of the treaty, and thus, the Muslims declared it null and void and prepared for an attack on its enemies.  They marched on Mecca with 10,000 men and entered the city without a fight.  Per Arab custom, it was expected that they would slaughter all inhabitants in the city, women and children included.  But, Muhammad (pbuh), the man the pagans had tormented for over 20 years, declared all people safe (except for a few war criminals) and ordered his forces to leave all people of Mecca unharmed.  Does the book you read mention this little fact? 

"At-Tauba (The Repentance)

9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Where is the command to forcefully convert people?  This verse was revealed after the defeat of the pagans and refers specifically to the Byzantine Empire, which had attacked a Muslim force at the Battle of Mutah.  A Byzantine loyalist had murdered a Muslim emmissary, so Muhammad (pbuh) dispatched a 3,000-strong force to punish the murderers.  Instead, they were ambushed by a much larger Byzantine force.  Why didn't the Byzantines punish the murderers?  It was clear that they were not interested in peace.  So, after the Muslims had secured Arabia, they could now concentrate on the Byzantine Empire, which had by its actions, declared war on the Muslim Ummah.  Notice that in the verse, there is no command to "convert the infidels or put them to the sword". 

"He ordered that their hands and feet cut off and nails were driven in their eyes and they were cast out into al-Harra'. They asked for water but none was given to them until they died." [thanks rami for this translation]

This Hadith goes way beyond the death penalty rami. It goes way beyond being simply "cruel".

Any thinking person would consider it torture, no less, of the most vile and vicious kind.

rami, it is telling that when you say "this was a punishment for what they did to the shepherd," you end it with "allahu allam [allah knows better]".  "allahu allam" is used, so often, by Muslims to justify points that conflict with their own sense of right and wrong, with rationality. Rami, you can't justify the unjustifiable with "allahu allam".  After all, couldn't that sense of right and wrong be from god in the first place?

My point is that if the Hadith is true, and Muhammad did in truth order such gratuitous and brutal treatment of another human beings, (even if they were murderers), then how can he be considered to represent an ideology of "peace, mercy, and forgiveness"?

Furthermore, to cause death in such a painful and drawn-out way represents, to me, a particularly 'godless' act. If Muhammad believed in god then surely he would trust that god to punish the murderers after they were quickly put to death. Why prolong their killing in such a callous and sadistic way?

If the Hadith is true then how could its example possibly be followed by 'good' Muslims?

Surely, a 'good' Muslim would find it difficuilt to believe that the Muhammad they revered could possibly sanction such vindictiveness.

You asked me, islamispeace, if I was a Christian. I'm not, although I've read the bible and found nothing in the words nor the deeds attributed to Jesus which demonstrated any cruelty or godlessness.  Only goodness.

Currently I have no religion. I was born a Muslim. Over the last few years I've begun to read the Qu'ran. I've debated with Muslims, both lay-people and a couple of scholars, and feel that Islam, as it is currently interpreted by so many Muslims, could not represent god's will. Certainly not a god representing "peace, mercy, and forgiveness".

So much about its ideology, teachings and examples (including the 'example' set by Mohammad) "worries me".

And it "worries me" that millions of Muslims, educated Muslims, throughout the world seem to read the same violent and intolerant message into its teachings as I do.

However, I am encouraged by coming to this Forum. I am reassured that you, islamispeace, appear to believe (like Angela) that Qu'ranic verses should be viewed in their "historical context".

That belief, together with the rejection by all Muslims of Hadith like the example I gave might, in time, lead to a 'renaissance' of Islam.

Something it surely needs...

Salaam Rezz,

Welcome to the forum. I cannot answer these questions from a Quranic point of view.  But I wanted to welcome you.

just curious, do you believe in "God," or Allah? Do you believe in a divine creator? Because many atheists thing Allah is cruel, look at all of the suffering in the world, how can there be a "good" God? They ask is not God "cruel"? I'd be curious as to what your views are..

again welcome  

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

"He ordered that their hands and feet cut off and nails were driven in their eyes and they were cast out into al-Harra'. They asked for water but none was given to them until they died." [thanks rami for this translation]

This Hadith goes way beyond the death penalty rami. It goes way beyond being simply "cruel".

I didnt mention the death penalty , dont confuse posts.

What this is an indication of is ignorance of the worst kind , you having been "born" a muslim should know better than to take ahadith out of context, you should also know better than people who know nothing about islam that it is not permissible for a muslim to read a hadith and take any ruling from it. Ahadith are accounts which are taken out of context for the sake of brevity without exception.

More ignorant is your judging an entire religion based on one hadith, what rational person would judge volumes upon volumes of historical eyewitness accounts based upon one narration and conclude upon the character of someone.

English scholarship will not stand for this belligerent analysis.

Lets discuss cruelty, is there punishment worse than what Allah himself will do to them in Hell?

Are you so attached to life that you think death is a punishment itself, the tortures of hell wont even compare to what they went through before death so are you going to accuse Allah of cruelty also?

Is there punishment more cruel than being stoned to death for adultery, as Allah himself commanded?

Would you prefer being stoned to death, going through what those murderers went through before death or what Allah will do to you in Hell...You have a choice to make Decide, there is no other option.

It is a Muslim belief that if a person is punished for something in this life Allah will not punish them for it in the next life, this is why people are stoned to death, the first women to go through this in Islam went up to the prophet himself on three separate occasions and confessed her sin to him, he turned her away three times, so Question now becomes what reason is there for this specific and uncommon punishment that these criminals went through.

Any thinking person would consider it torture, no less, of the most vile and vicious kind.

Maybe you should keep thinking about something called mental conditioning and cultural conformity, what you think is right and wrong are what you made up for your self or what your society decided for you.

You are not an Original thinker.

I consider being electricuted to death torture but the western world calls it punishment so what is the difference.

rami, it is telling that when you say "this was a punishment for what they did to the shepherd,"...............After all, couldn't that sense of right and wrong be from god in the first place?

My point is that if the Hadith is true, and Muhammad did in truth order such gratuitous and brutal treatment of another human beings, (even if they were murderers), then how can he be considered to represent an ideology of "peace, mercy, and forgiveness"?

Furthermore, to cause death in such a painful and drawn-out way represents, to me, a particularly 'godless' act. If Muhammad believed in god then surely he would trust that god to punish the murderers after they were quickly put to death. Why prolong their killing in such a callous and sadistic way?

How blind an argument, you are actually accusing him of NOT believing in God??

This is the sum of your thoughts?

Callus and sadistic are conclusions made upon a persons character all you have is one hadith being put forth against a mountain of other accounts which say otherwise and you rationally choose to take the one single hadith.....what conclusions can i draw from this about your state of mind?

If the Hadith is true then how could its example possibly be followed by 'good' Muslims?

As you imply there are no "good" muslims.

How can it be followed? it is not since neither you nor i know much about this hadith to be able to conclude logically upon its significance.

Surely, a 'good' Muslim would find it difficuilt to believe that the Muhammad they revered could possibly sanction such vindictiveness.

Yes i do find it hard to believe this is all there is to know about the circumstances and the intentions behind the actions which is why i reserve judgment on this matter especially in light of all other accounts about the Prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam].

Rami �I asked you about the book you read, and if it gave you all the facts.�

The book I read was by Robert Spencer, �The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.� Spencer is clearly very anti-Islam, however, I�ve cross-referenced his sources and found them to be accurate, and, on a purely philosophical level, I can�t currently fault his arguments.

I don�t know if he gave me �all the facts�, that�s why I came to this Forum: to see if there is another side of the argument which stands up to intellectual scrutiny. I�ve already ordered a copy of Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet" and hope that this will enlighten me. (Thank you for your kind recommendation, islamispeace).

Islamispeace, you said, �The fallacy in your reasoning lies in the fact that you believe that this one incident somehow overrules the 20+ years of the Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) prophetic career.  You choose to get bogged down on one incident.�

This is, with respect, an invalid argument on all counts. A man who murders even once in his life is still a �murderer� none-the-less. I know of no laws nor recognised moral system that would negate a murder on the basis that the murderer had, except for that one murder, spent his whole life being good. A simpler analogy would be that �you only lose your virginity once�.

You go on to say, �The Quran urged the Muslims to fight against the Byzantines, to defeat them and to make them submit and surrender.  But, it did not allow the Muslims to force the defeated enemy to convert to Islam or face death.  Instead, it gave the conquered peoples the choice of accepting Islam or paying a tax.  Remember, these were the same people who had attacked first.  So, these verses are not just for those times.  They are for all times.  They apply now, just as they applied then.� 

The underlined sentences worry me greatly as they vindicate the arguments put by Spencer. I sat on a plane for several hours next to a Muslim living in Spain who believed that in time, Europe would be �re-conquered� by Islam, Sharia law would reign and non-Muslims would pay �jizya�. He said, as you do, that the West in Iraq, Afganistan and Israel have "attacked first".

Spencer argues that the Achilles-heel of European democracy is demographics. He argues that the very high level of Muslims immigration into Europe coupled with the very high birth-rate of this population will, un-checked, lead to an eventual Muslim majority in parts of Europe. In those circumstances, he argues that Sharia law could be established �democratically� and imposed on the indigenous non-Muslim populations who would end up living as dhimmis and paying jizya.

Islamispeace, your comments appear, to me, to support this scenario. Do think that the scenario I outlined is reasonable?

Rami, much of what you wrote is only reasonable or logical from an Islamo-centric point of view. You wrote �is there punishment more cruel than being stoned to death for adultery, as Allah himself commanded?�

Now to you, this seems to be a very reasonable statement. To the overwhelming majority of Europeans, the stoning of people to death (whatever their crime) is a totally unacceptable, barbaric, medieval practice.

You must appreciate that 99.9% of non-Muslim Europeans would conclude, that any belief system that actually advocated or promoted this act was violent and intolerant and had no place in Western civilisation.

Indeed it is interesting that the Muslim groups seeking to promote a 'moderate' veiw of Muslims in the West, people like CAIR and the Muslim Council of Britain, tend to argue that Sharia doesn�t involve  stoning and limb amputation.

Spencer argues that these Muslim groups are being �economical� with the truth. And your post seems to support his analysis.

I will, as promised, read Karen Armstrong's book in my search for the truth. However, one must see the irony of this thread. I ask, �Is Islam violent and intolerant?�

And two clearly articulate and intelligent Muslims back up their responses with support of stoning adulterers and the imposition of jizya.

What am I (or any other non-Muslim reading this thread) to conclude about Islam?

Finally, Hayfa, thank you for welcoming me to this Forum. You ask me �do you believe in "God," or Allah? Do you believe in a divine creator? Because many atheists think Allah is cruel, look at all of the suffering in the world,�

My beliefs are developing as I question and study in my on-going quest for answers. I believe that much of what is �good� in the main religious manuscripts such as the Qu�ran, the Torah and the New Testament could represent the teachings of �a divine creator�.

Rez,

I study medieval philosophy and nueroscience and somewhere in between are the criticisms of God and religion. Now, from what I read briefly you finished reading a book that criticized Muhammad and Islam. So even before I acknowledge that it appears that prior to reading this book it seems that your faith in Islam was not strong to begin with so for one to read a book that is anti-muslim is to support one's faultering view of a religion. It's easy to continue to disbelieve in something by reading the negative aspects of other's criticism of that religion.

For the most part I agree with Rami rezz. Most critics have not studied the language of the people nor hav taken into the historical and socio-cultural aspect of that time. Whether you agree or not our moral think has changed as a human species from 1500's to now. Back then in Europe kings used to marry 10-year old girls, now we have laws that define them as pedophiles and we lock them up. Of criticis, looking at the historical context use this to their advantage and label Muhammad a pedophile so as you can see its easy for any writer to try to find loop holes in a religion.

"I don�t know if he gave me �all the facts�, that�s why I came to this Forum: to see if there is another side of the argument which stands up to intellectual scrutiny."

It is obvious that he has not.

"I�ve already ordered a copy of Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet" and hope that this will enlighten me. (Thank you for your kind recommendation, islamispeace)."

It is well-written and balanced.  Unlike Spencer, Armstrong is a respected commentator on religious studies.  She has credibility.  Spencer does not.

" This is, with respect, an invalid argument on all counts. A man who murders even once in his life is still a �murderer� none-the-less. I know of no laws nor recognised moral system that would negate a murder on the basis that the murderer had, except for that one murder, spent his whole life being good. A simpler analogy would be that �you only lose your virginity once�."

We are not about talking about murder, we are talking about punishing a murderer.  These are two different issues.  You are right to say that a man who murders even once is still a murderer.  Therefore, that person is deserving of punishment.  What that punishment is depends on the society in which that person is a part of.  The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had punished murderers, not innocent people.  Therefore, your argument is invalid.

"The underlined sentences worry me greatly as they vindicate the arguments put by Spencer. I sat on a plane for several hours next to a Muslim living in Spain who believed that in time, Europe would be �re-conquered� by Islam, Sharia law would reign and non-Muslims would pay �jizya�. He said, as you do, that the West in Iraq, Afganistan and Israel have "attacked first"."

Yes, I am sure Spencer and his ilk expect Muslims to just tolerate the bombing of their countries and the murders of their people.  I wonder if he would have said the same thing if he was alive in the 1940s after the Pearl Harbor attack, that to consider the Japanese as the enemy whom they had to defeat and bring under control would have been a "worrying" development.  He probably would have been put in jail as a traitor or "Jap sympathizer" (Jap was a derogatory term used to refer to the Japanese). 

He ignores the fact that many Europeans convert to Islam.  True, the majority of Muslims in Europe are immigrants, but a significant portion of them are European converts.  Spencer shows his extreme ignorance on Sharia law.  Sharia law applies only to Muslims, not non-Muslims.  It also covers a broad range of issues and topics, not just criminal law.  It covers marriage laws, divorce laws, inheritance laws, dietary laws etc.  Now, if over time, Europe becomes predominately Muslim because Muslims constitute the majority of the population, what is there to discuss?  The USA became predominately "white, Christian" because of mass European migrations to North America, and European culture was actually forcefully imposed on the people already living there.  This was not even because of "demographics".  If the scenario Spencer lays out actually comes true, it will be because of "demographics" as he claims, not because of force.

"Islamispeace, your comments appear, to me, to support this scenario. Do think that the scenario I outlined is reasonable?"

If it is, it would take hundreds of years, and it would not be a result of force and violence, which is the topic of this thread.

"Now to you, this seems to be a very reasonable statement. To the overwhelming majority of Europeans, the stoning of people to death (whatever their crime) is a totally unacceptable, barbaric, medieval practice."

Like I said, "you can't please everyone."  Every culture has its own views.  You appear to say that what the Europeans say is what is right.  This is absurd of course.  The Europeans may find stoning adulterers to be "barbaric" (while adultery is a norm in their society), but they find something like abortion to be perfectly fine.  If there is a better paradox, I have not seen it.  These "civilized" Europeans actually behave in a similar way to the "savage" Arabs, who before being saved and civilized by Islam, used to bury infants alive in the desert.  What a paradox!  A culture which claims to be "modern" and "civilized" feels that killing unborn children is nothing to be ashamed about, but feels that stoning adulterers is "barbaric".  WOW!

"You must appreciate that 99.9% of non-Muslim Europeans would conclude, that any belief system that actually advocated or promoted this act was violent and intolerant and had no place in Western civilisation."

And yet, abortion and adultery are norms of this civilization. 

"And two clearly articulate and intelligent Muslims back up their responses with support of stoning adulterers and the imposition of jizya."

Cultural barriers will keep people from accepting the beliefs of other cultures.  Europeans clearly see nothing wrong with killing babies, but they squirm when adulterers and murderers are put to death in Islamic countries.  They pay their income taxes, but feel that paying a poll tax, which exempts them from military service and pays for the same things an income tax would pay for, is "worrying."  Of course, they probably do not know that Muslims are required to pay their own tax, the "Zakat" tax, which is one of the 5 pillars of Islam.

"What am I (or any other non-Muslim reading this thread) to conclude about Islam?"

Ignorance breeds more ignorance.  What you conclude would be the result of your own ignorance, bred by the ignorance of those you rely on for information and how you should think.  It would also be the result of your own personal views and biases. 

Thank you for your eloquent and comprehensive reply, islamispeace.

I cannot argue or disprove any of the points you made, so I won�t try. They are absolutely valid from your Islamo-centric view point. Your belief in �right and wrong�, �good and bad� born of your sincere faith in Islam as the will of god. Your views are clearly in-tune with the many sincere Muslims I have conversed with so far and I respect them as such.

And my points are equally valid from a European, liberal, democratic viewpoint, and reflect the majority, indigenous cultural opinion in Europe. I believe that you islamispeace, as well as Muslims living in Europe, ought to appreciate, even respect that view.

I imagine that most Muslims reading your post will be nodding their heads in approval as you seem to take apart each of my points.

However, islamispeace, I am confident that most Europeans will read the same points, shaking their heads in disapproval (horror even) at some of your �moral equivalence� arguments, such as:

�Like I said, "you can't please everyone."  Every culture has its own views.  You appear to say that what the Europeans say is what is right.  This is absurd of course.  The Europeans may find stoning adulterers to be "barbaric" (while adultery is a norm in their society), but they find something like abortion to be perfectly fine.�

And:

�Cultural barriers will keep people from accepting the beliefs of other cultures.  Europeans clearly see nothing wrong with killing babies, but they squirm when adulterers and murderers are put to death in Islamic countries.�

And there's the rub. The issue here is not whether one side is right or wrong. I, like 99.9% of my fellow Europeans, believe that adultery, whilst unpleasant, should not be a crime. And yes, we do find the stoning of adulterer utterly �barbaric�.

The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that we have two conflicting, if not diametrically opposed civilisations.

If Muslims find European culture to be immoral whilst indigenous Europeans find Muslim culture to be barbaric then can we ever co-exist in the same country?

Should each side compromise to accommodate the other? If so, how? And how much?

Finally islamispeace, reading your post has helped me to appreciate that to Muslims, Islam is indeed peaceful and tolerant. It is also, on occasion, violent and intolerant and justifiably so from an Islamic perspective.

However, it would be helpful if you also tried to appreciate how, from a non-Muslims perspective, Islam does indeed appear (at times) to promote violence and intolerance.

Rezz,

There are all different types of "cruel" punishment.  Have you ever watched shows on the prison system as we know it? How people are locked up for 20 years of their life. Come out a broken shell, more prone to terrible behavior. Locked in cells 24 hours a day. It was gruesome to watch.  The brutality of prison is quite stark if you know about it. And this is not even just for murderers. It is very, very brutal and we are supposedly civilized. It is just quite hidden away. It is also a HUGE money making scheme.. people are profiting from these bad people. It is one of the largest industries in the US, the prison system.

Have you ever read the laws put down in the Old Testament? They are quite brutal. When Jesus (PBUH)  came, he was not changing those laws. He was already speaking to people who had this base. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) brought the Message to a people completely in the dark, without these laws.

A good explanation as to why such a "harsh" punishment: http://216.176.51.23/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id=135506&ShowVoteResult=yes - http://216.176.51.23/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id= 135506&ShowVoteResult=yes

Also, the purpose, I believe, in harsh punishment is to deter people. There are just bad people. And you know, some people won't be deterred unless it is made dramatic and clear. It is about protecting the lives of the innocent. How many people in west do you hear that victims have no rights?? If one knows this could be the �punishment� then people really will think twice. Here people go �off to prison� but that is quite unreal to many people.  

However, it would be helpful if you also tried to appreciate how, from a non-Muslims perspective, Islam does indeed appear (at times) to promote violence and intolerance.

And if you asked them what should happen to people who commit terrible acts.. they might just agree with these punishments. Ask anyone whose loved one has been brutally murdered�  I read on middle of the road web sites about Michael Vick who just admitted to all the dog fighting stuff. And average people thought if he tortured dogs like that they should put him in a ring with the dogs and let them take it out on him. Quite brutal is it not?? Its all how something is presented.

It is all how you frame the question. If you ask someone what should happen to someone who raped your daughter or intentionally killed someone, you�d be surprised what they would not mind happening to them.

Is it not better to have it clear and distinct rather then not?

Take care.

" I imagine that most Muslims reading your post will be nodding their heads in approval as you seem to take apart each of my points."

Well, I certainly hope so!

" However, islamispeace, I am confident that most Europeans will read the same points, shaking their heads in disapproval (horror even) at some of your �moral equivalence� arguments,"

Well then, Muslims will just have to try harder to change their pompous arrogance by discussing with them these issues.  For centuries, Europeans have looked down upon the rest of the world as "inferior", and this attitude always led to destruction and tragedy.  It seems to me that you and your fellow Europeans should look at yourselves first, before you criticize others. 

That is your view, and yours alone.  For you to use your views to look down upon other cultures is not only a sign of arrogance, but also ignorance.  I have shown you that none of the issues you have raised here are valid.  Therefore, the conclusion is that the issue is not whether Islam is "violent and intolerant", it is whether the European mindset is "violent and intolerant".  It is clear from your own words that Europeans are intolerant of other cultural views, or so you claim.  If you are right in this regard, then I feel that Muslims need to be very concerned and "worried".

"The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that we have two conflicting, if not diametrically opposed civilisations."

No argument here.  Very rarely do different cultures and civilizations share the same morals and beliefs.  Does this necessarily mean that they cannot get along?  Of course not.

"If Muslims find European culture to be immoral whilst indigenous Europeans find Muslim culture to be barbaric then can we ever co-exist in the same country? Should each side compromise to accommodate the other? If so, how? And how much?"

I really do not know.  I would like to think so, but there is no way to know until we actually try.

" Finally islamispeace, reading your post has helped me to appreciate that to Muslims, Islam is indeed peaceful and tolerant. It is also, on occasion, violent and intolerant and justifiably so from an Islamic perspective."

"However, it would be helpful if you also tried to appreciate how, from a non-Muslims perspective, Islam does indeed appear (at times) to promote violence and intolerance."

Angela wrote: Rezz, Like Christianity and Judaism, there will always be those that take things out of context, focus on a narrow view and use their beliefs to discriminate and twist it to their own ends. My first suggestion is to read the Quran.  As a Christian, I found that most questions can be answered right in the pages.  The second thing I would suggest is when you come to the battle sections...compare the dates of revelation with what was happening to the Muslims at the time.  Many revelations were given during the severe and brutal persecutions of the Muslims by the pagans of Mecca.  They also suffered a hard betrayal by a Jewish tribe in Medina.

Hi

There are very few Catholic Christians who would have understood peaceful Islam like our sister Angela has understood on the subject. Our Christian friends hardly understand these points when we explain these things to them. It would be an act of charity if she writes such posts on the http://forums.catholic.com/index.php - Catholic Answers Forums under Non-Catholic Religions. This would promote peace in the world. I also write there.

May GodAllahYHWH bless our sister Angela!

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi � a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

Rezz wrote: Muslim posters are praising Angela, but do you really agree with her? I�ve yet to have my second question addressed so I'll ask it clearly; Do any Muslims agree with Angela�s view that Muhammad�s revelations should be taken in the historical �context� of the time they were revealed?

Hi

I am the one who agrees with Angela's views that Muhammad�s revelations should be taken in the historical �context� of the time they were revealed.

I would rather go one step forward and would say that the historical "context" of the time has even been mentioned in explicit verses in the Quran.

So in fact the historical context is supportive of what has been already mentioned in Quran but not understood by many. If I am allowed I would reconcile both.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi � a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

paarsurrey,

Perhaps the reason I have such a few is I am not Catholic.  True I was raised in the Eastern Orthodox Church, however, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  (The most common nickname is Mormons) 

The similarities between my faith and Islam and our similar histories has given me a very compassionate and understanding view of Islam.  I know the lies and twisted truths that are told about my faith.  I learned a long time ago only to find my answers buried in the people themselves.  I have no trust in "outside" scholars of any faith.  The only people who truly know a faith are the ones within it that study and become acquainted with their own doctrines.

All religions have one weakness.  Their followers.  Religion is meant to help imperfect beings live better lives.  Its a set of rules for the lawless nature of humanity.  Even, sadly, some atheists have a code of conduct they adhere to in their lives.  However...their codes are that of man and not from God.  So, they swirl around the "as long as your not hurting anybody..."

God wants us to return to him.  He does not want us to burn in hell.  He gave us the Noahide laws, and we failed.  So he gave us the 10 commandments....and we ignored them.  Then Jesus came and said, Love thy neighbor as theyself.  And we again failed.  In my faith, Prophets are still among us... and yet members and non members alike ignore warnings against racism, adultery, abuse and pornography.

As humans, its our personal responsibility to see to our own actions.  As rational beings, we should know that we cannot hold entire groups based on the actions of the weakest members.  I will not judge Buddhists based on the Junta.  I will not judge Muslims based on the Taliban and I will not judge Christians based on the KKK.

God is a God of Peace.  Man is a machine of War and Cruelty.  But we should never forget, God is a God of justice.  Each action we take will be answered for at the Last Day.  So, are SOME (fill in the blank worshipers) violent and intolerant?  Yes, but thankfully, I believe in a perfect being called God.  I believe in his perfect judgement and his perfect mercy.  No matter what trials we face in our lives, or what evil men might be out there.  If we take personal responsibility for our actions and have a personal relationship with God Almighty and do our best to obey his commandments.  It will all work itself out in the end.

Angela,

Am impressed with your thoughts! You say you dont believe in the Quran being perfect? Tell me, where is it not perfect? You are almost muslim the way you think - what's left is that you believe in the Oneness of Allah and you're there!

I'll tell you the good news for a revert to islam. You are forgiven all your previous sins and not only that, all your good deeds before islam are left recorded for you! Isn't that just so amazing?! We believe Allah is the Most Merciful, the Most Gracious and this is just one of the many proofs...

Don't hesitate - make up your mind and surrender to the wills of Allah the Almighty...

May Allah guide us all to His straight path - Ameen.

Rezz wrote: I don't wish to insult anyone, I'm here to try to learn. This Website describes Islam as "a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness". However, I have just finished reading a book, which appears to demonstrate that Islam is fundamentally an intolerant and violent ideology. The book relies on and quotes only accepted Islamic texts such as the Qu'ran, Hadith and Sunna. It also argues (convincingly in my opinion) that Muhammad was a warlord and bandit who preached violence, ordered the assassinations of his enemies, and used his "divine revelations" for his personal self-aggrandizement. I have checked the Islamic sources quoted in the book in own Qu'ran and on the Internet and found them to be accurate. Further more, I recently had a discussion with a highly religious Muslim on flight from Moscow to the Middle East and was concerned with some of his views concerning the killing of apostates, cartoonists, Israelis, Salman Rushdie, infidels etc. I've also looked at some of the posts on these discussion forums and concluded that many seem to point more towards a belief in violence, cruelty and hate, than in "peace, mercy, and forgiveness". I look at the violent actions of so many Muslims in the world today and wonder whether their actions are the result of their religion. Are there any books I can read that can convince me that Islam really is "a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness"?

Hi Rezz,

   Islam is not a violent religion. Muhammad did indeed use violence against his enemies, but keep in mind that they too used violence against him and Muslims. The Arab pagans and Jewish tribes who early Muslims fought were trying to wipe out the Muslims. It's not like they were innocent victims of 'terrorism', they had a lot of blood on their hands. Muhammad usually showed mercy to his enemies, and I've never heard of his fighters slaughtering women or children. The pagan Arabs he was fighting were sacrificing children on their altars and they did kill civilians.  

    Terrorists are people who murder civilians. Neither Muhammad or his soldiers did that. In one incident they did kill all male POWs of a Jewish tribe after a battle, after a verdict was passed by their own tribal leaders. I do believe this was wrong, but this was not an example of terrorism. The men who were killed were captured fighters. Aside from this incident, I have not heard of Muhammad ordering killings of unarmed people. In his place, his enemies would have almost certainly killed the women and children as well. In most cases, Muhammad allowed captured POWs to live. His enemies did not. From what I know about Muhammad, I do believe he certainly fought a �clean war� against his enemies, who were trying to kill his people- civilians as well as soldiers.

    Muhammad did certainly believe in God and genuinely wanted to serve Him. Although he was mistaken about certain things (the nature of Jesus, denial of His crucifixion, etc) he also did say many correct things about God (that there is only one God, that adultery is wrong etc) and was a much more ethical person than others in his time.

 Although he was not a terrorist, I do not believe that Muhammad�s answer to his enemies was the correct one. Jesus teaches that violence is wrong and He commanded His followers to love their enemies. Neither He nor His disciples raised swords against the people who mocked, arrested, beat and eventually murdered them. In spite of this, the Christian faith spread across the Roman Empire. The heretical �just war� theory was not adopted until the 4^th century. Many church leaders really went astray and for the next few centuries churches used Christianity as an excuse to conquer, invade, plunder, torture and murder millions of people. Look at what happened during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the genocide in the Americas. Some still advocate warfare and bloodshed, like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell. But you cannot argue that these people were following the Bible. Jesus made it very clear that we are to love our enemies, help the poor, and work for justice and peace. Although God did allow violence in the Old Testament, He made it clear through Jesus that this is not the case anymore. So-called �christians� who spill innocent blood (or anyone�s blood for that matter) are not followers of Christ and do not represent Christianity. Likewise is the case with so-called �muslims� who strap bombs to themselves and murder civilians or destroy villages and murder innocent men, women and children. The perpetrators of the genocide in East Timor or the 9-11 attacks were not following Islam.

 Islam is not a terrorist religion. When it comes to violence, Muslims are allowed to defend themselves when attacked but are to only kill people who are trying to kill them. That is not terrorism, that is warfare in self-defence and limited to only taking the fight to the enemy. Islam allows violence in self defence only. Christianity on the other hand does not allow for violence at all, but instead commands love for enemies and forgiveness to those who have wronged us. Christ died praying for the people who were crucifying Him, and His apostles too chose not to hate or hurt anyone, even as they were being persecuted. This is one of the many reasons why I choose Him and Him alone as my Saviour and Lord.

   Cristo Vive!

       - Tomasz

Tom,

It is interesting what you wrote. The idea that Jesus was about "peace" and yet they did a poll here in the states that asked people who are Christian what about "love thy neighbor" etc. And they said it goes out the window if you need to defend yourself. And that "war" is justifiable.

So do you think it is justifiable for a Christian woman  to defend herself if she is being raped? Even if it means she kills the man?  Or should she just "submit" and not commit an "act of violence?"

In light of the fact that there is tremendous violence all over the globe, most Christians are then not "true" Christians? Are they not opposing the war? Are they not speaking up? What about the violence in Latin America? Lots of people sit on their hands and say nothing. What about when Pope Pious did not take a more strident rejection of Hitler? Why did he not, himself, risk dying in order to save the Jews of Europe and expecially from his home country of Italy where the Vatican lies? I mean, the Moroccoan king stood up to Hitler and refused to allow the Jewish people of Morocco to be sent. Why not all the good "Christians?"

Does standing up for justice not also mean going to the defense of others? Not just in words? Nonviolence is one tactic. But only one is it not? Would Hitler have been stopped by a few protests? Or did it take war to do so?

You must know about Cambodia and Pol Pot's regime in the 1970s? The only way they were forced out what by an invasion of the Vietnamese. They had lost so many people. Millions died The only way the "killing fields stopped was an act of "aggression."

The only way that Japan's imperialism was stopped in Asia was through "aggression." They had murdered 100s of thousands of Chinese alone. This is not counting people throughout the rest of Asia.

As a person who grew up in Catholicism the "turn the othe cheek" was not the solution to being abused, picked on or bullied. In fact it just made me get abused more and my self-esteem dropped. And in cases of "agression" to do so is actually more dangerous. It clearly shows in statisitcs with self-defense, the more you defend yourself, the less likely people will hurt you.  That is not saying you "bully" back. But in cases of self-defense it is so true. Women who fight back aggressively are less likely to be raped, hurt or killed.

Now about the over15,000 rapes and sexual assualts happening in the Congo? Should we just protest and "love thy neighbor" and wait until the mnosters are done? Or do we go in and stop them??? Even if it means physical force.

Islam to me combines the spirtual with reality. If someone is outright aggresive toward you or innocents, if they are trying to kill you you have a right to use physical force. Makes sense to me.

Hayfa wrote: Tom, It is interesting what you wrote. The idea that Jesus was about "peace" and yet they did a poll here in the states that asked people who are Christian what about "love thy neighbor" etc. And they said it goes out the window if you need to defend yourself. And that "war" is justifiable. So do you think it is justifiable for a Christian woman  to defend herself if she is being raped? Even if it means she kills the man?  Or should she just "submit" and not commit an "act of violence?" In light of the fact that there is tremendous violence all over the globe, most Christians are then not "true" Christians? Are they not opposing the war? Are they not speaking up? What about the violence in Latin America? Lots of people sit on their hands and say nothing. What about when Pope Pious did not take a more strident rejection of Hitler? Why did he not, himself, risk dying in order to save the Jews of Europe and expecially from his home country of Italy where the Vatican lies? I mean, the Moroccoan king stood up to Hitler and refused to allow the Jewish people of Morocco to be sent. Why not all the good "Christians?" Does standing up for justice not also mean going to the defense of others? Not just in words? Nonviolence is one tactic. But only one is it not? Would Hitler have been stopped by a few protests? Or did it take war to do so? You must know about Cambodia and Pol Pot's regime in the 1970s? The only way they were forced out what by an invasion of the Vietnamese. They had lost so many people. Millions died The only way the "killing fields stopped was an act of "aggression." The only way that Japan's imperialism was stopped in Asia was through "aggression." They had murdered 100s of thousands of Chinese alone. This is not counting people throughout the rest of Asia. As a person who grew up in Catholicism the "turn the othe cheek" was not the solution to being abused, picked on or bullied. In fact it just made me get abused more and my self-esteem dropped. And in cases of "agression" to do so is actually more dangerous. It clearly shows in statisitcs with self-defense, the more you defend yourself, the less likely people will hurt you.  That is not saying you "bully" back. But in cases of self-defense it is so true. Women who fight back aggressively are less likely to be raped, hurt or killed. Now about the over15,000 rapes and sexual assualts happening in the Congo? Should we just protest and "love thy neighbor" and wait until the mnosters are done? Or do we go in and stop them??? Even if it means physical force. Islam to me combines the spirtual with reality. If someone is outright aggresive toward you or innocents, if they are trying to kill you you have a right to use physical force. Makes sense to me.

   Hi Hayfa,

You say 'Islam to me combines the spirtual with reality.'

   That may be the case in the view of many. The Christian approach (as Jesus commands) may seem to many to be illogical or unrealistic and other words have been used to describe it as well. But as Jesus said, His Kingdom is not of this world. Christians are called to place loyalty to God above anything else, including their own lives. Christian peaceful action has saved many lives, like the CPT in Palestine who often physically blocked Israeli soldiers from opening fire on protesters. Or priests and pastors and Christian laymen in Nazi occupied Europe who hid tens of thousands of Jews (in Poland alone) from the SS.

Non-violence (Hindu) in India was very successful and began the end of the British empire. It toppled the Soviet empire in most of Eastern Europe. And Marcos in the Phillipines. So even on earth, it can often be very successful.

Violence sometimes begins as a tool of self-defence and quickly becomes a weapon of attack. Like Iraqi insurgents who originally began their war targeting only armed US soldiers and now murder Shiite fellow Muslims by the thousands. Pol Pot himself was initially a victim of US imperialism, the Khmer Rouge was formed in response to US crimes in SouthEast Asia and the crimes of their puppets. Even now, some of their loyalists still claim they were 'liberating' Cambodia.

Assalamu Alaikum and hi everyone,

Islam is not violent nor is it intolerant:

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

Qur'an 5:32 

Couple of points as a reminder here, in general, and in particular relevant to this section:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=7 - Discussions - Islam for non-Muslims
Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning is allowed but not debate.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/default.asp - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/default.asp

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4589& ;PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4589& ; ;PN=1

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10453&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10453&am p;PN=1

Tom123 wrote: peacemaker wrote: Assalamu Alaikum and hi everyone, Islam is not violent nor is it intolerant: "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land." Qur'an 5:32  Couple of points as a reminder here, in general, and in particular relevant to this section: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=7 - Discussions - Islam for non-Muslims Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning is allowed but not debate. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/default.asp - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/default.asp "There is no limit on questions one may ask or repeatedly ask to clarify a point about Islamic faith as long as the purpose is to seek knowledge about Islam. This is the place where only those who believe in Islamic faith and have proper knowledge on the subject should take part to answer, and those who can not positively contribute here should not take part." http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7684&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7684& ; ; ; ;PN=1 And then the guidelines in general: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4589&%20;PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4589& ; ; ; ;PN=1 http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10453&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10453&am p;am p;am p;PN=1    Sorry, peacemaker. You are completely correct, I apologize for breaking the rules.    Cristo Vive!      - Tomasz

Hi Tom123, it was a general reminder, and it was not aimed at anyone, in particular. I appreciate your receptiveness.

May Allah guide us all.

Peace