Is peace most required for spread of Islam? Yes, of course it is, undoubtedly.

[LuisDantas]

I think to be wise you have to accept there is no hope of 'true peace'. There is only harm reduction and the possibility of reducing war.

I refuse with a passion. Among other reasons because there would be no point in accepting such a claim.

So you don't agree that tolerating the intolerant ultimately leads to the end of tolerance?

There are wise and unwise ways of doing that, and ultimately no guarantee of the results.

Still, no, I certainly do not agree.

In my opinion, there is only hope for humankind if we accept it as the reality that exists, and don't chase a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Apparently you have a different interpretation of that statement from mine.

Again, I think we must. "All it takes for evil to succeed is for the good people to do nothing".

My point exactly!

The opposite. It is the protection of virtue. We can only create a society worth having if we are prepared to fight for it.

Sigh. You can't be serious.

To be clear, I am no believer in universalism. This is not about remaking the world in our own image, but about protecting our societies from those who wish to destroy them. Other societies can decide on their own destiny, insofar as they leave us to do likewise.

I'm a localist, not a globalist. Federations of localised governance allow people best to live in peace. People can live locally in the society that reflects their values, and the Federation allows the collective whole to carry a big enough stick to allow them to do so.

Sorry... that is just way too self-defeating for me to even seriously consider.

Can I ask how you view the ideal society (in a practical sense). What kind of governance do you think offers the best chance of the most peace?

A fluid one, with a high degree of education for the common folk. Parlamentarist, or close to it. High transparence. Nearly no care whatsover to "national" interests, at least when compared to local and global ones.

Ultimately, the exact form of governance is not nearly as important as the mindsets of the people. People who do not want a representative, inclusive society are virtually certain not to attain it.

Again, I think the opposite. The stick doesn't bend people to my will, it stops them from bending me to their will.

The distinction does not even exist in practice.

Can I ask how do you propose dealing with those who hate your virtues?

I must attempt to convince and integrate them. There is no other way.

I'm proposing refusing to commit suicide by allowing those who wish to subjugate me from being able to do so without fear.

I have no idea of why you think so.

Who do you think would be in a better position when threatened in the street, Mike Tyson seeking to avoid violence or Noam Chomsky seeking to avoid violence?

At the long term? Chomsky.

 

[Augustus]

I refuse with a passion. Among other reasons because there would be no point in accepting such a claim.

What makes you believe this is a possibility? Just hope or do you believe it is something that is plausible given the evidence?

There are wise and unwise ways of doing that, and ultimately no guarantee of the results.

Still, no, I certainly do not agree.

Of course there are wise and unwise ways of doing that, but a fanatical minority will bend a passive majority to their will.

You can't stop IS with good intentions.

Sigh. You can't be serious.

Do you believe the Allies should have fought Hitler? Should the Franks have resisted the Arab invaders? Should governments fight against criminals?

Fighting for what you believe doesn't entail aggression, just the acceptance that sometimes defence is necessary.

The distinction does not even exist in practice.

I'm not quite sure I get your point. How do you protect your way of life from a violent enemy intent on subjugating or killing you?

Do you believe you can defeat a violent enemy purely through the power of a positive attitude? Do you believe countries should unilaterally decommission their militaries even if their neighbours do not?

I must attempt to convince and integrate them. There is no other way.

By all means try that first, but if it doesn't work then it's better to have a plan B rather than finding out too late that they interpret your tolerance as weakness. They will not show such restraint and your tolerant society has been replaced by their fanatical one.

The idea that everybody can be top down integrated into one big happy family is the danger imo. A diverse species such as our own will always remain so. The idea of universal values is an offshoot of monotheism so assuming it is 'natural' is a mistake.

Globalism is the problem, not the solution. Radical devolution and localism is the solution. People can be better integrated at a local level than the macro level, and those who don't want to integrate can move or be moved to a locale better suited to their tastes.

Your best chance of peace is to allow different cultures their own space to do as they will, and having sufficient deterrent capacities to prevent others from attacking you.

At the long term? Chomsky.

If you last that long. There is no long term if one is dead.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes that is what we are feed, but that isn't what we get, there is no peace, unless you imagine there is.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is peace most required for spread of Islam? Yes, of course it is, undoubtedly.

Muhammad was a peaceful man, he never did any thing pertaining to violence to violence, there is nothing anything on the record like that up-to the age of forty, when he was chosen a Messenger/Prophet of God/Allah/YHVH/Brahman/Tao/Waheguru/Ahura-Mazda, the highest of the Messengers/Prophets ever. He was selected on this office as he was the most peaceful man ever. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Further to post #24 above, i have to add from the life sketch of Muhammad:

"WE have now answered the question concerning the need for the revelation of the Quran in the presence of other religious books. We wish now to give a life-sketch of the Holy Prophet. The connection between a revelation and its recipient is intimate, and we cannot hope to understand the one without the other. The philosopher is able to dissociate what a person says from the person saying and to think of each in isolation from the other. An Arabic proverb regards what a person says as more important than the person saying it. But the great majority of ordinary human beings make no distinction between the two and regard both as equally important. With regard to a revealed book it seems particularly important that, when we study it we should keep in view the life and character of the person who received the book from God and communicated it to his generation. A religious teaching, however well-argued, is not accepted by a people unless it captivates them by a strong personality appeal. This is because religious Law is different in aim from secular law. The State stands for stability and order. It seeks to establish external obedience ; for this it is enough to have laws which secure external good behaviour. Motives do not matter so long as there is no visible departure from the law. Bad motives are not punished by any court of law unless they result in bad conduct. But from the standpoint of religion, motives are as important as the actions which result from them. They are even more important. Actions are also important-they are the symptoms and signs of invisible motives. But an improvement in visible actions is no guarantee of improvement in invisible motives. An improvement in invisible motives, however, is a guarantee of improvement in visible actions. Fire without warmth is impossible ; so is purity of heart impossible without purity of conduct. Temporary lapses or indolence there may be ; but in general, purity of heart must lead to purity of conduct. "
Page-130
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf
So character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.
Regards

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Muhammad was a peaceful man, he never did any thing pertaining to violence to violence, there is nothing anything on the record like that up-to the age of forty, when he was chosen a Messenger

After be declared himself a prophet, he started a war with Mecca and, after his victory, set about conquering the rest of Arabia. If he was a peaceful manbefore, it would appear that his religion made him violent!

 

[paarsurrey]

After be declared himself a prophet, he started a war with Mecca and, after his victory, set about conquering the rest of Arabia. If he was a peaceful manbefore, it would appear that his religion made him violent!

Please don't jump to wrong conclusions:

"Now purity of heart is best promoted by concrete example. A good law appeals to our understanding and reason ; but a good example appeals to our motives and sentiments. A good law rouses us to think, but a good example rouses us to action. When thinking becomes refined, it may or may not result in a refinement of our physical and spiritual character. It may result only in spasms of good conduct-not in a steady and stable character. The point is illustrated by the difference between ordinary altruistic conduct and altruistic conduct which springs from natural instincts such as the maternal instinct. One springs largely from reason, the other largely from emotions.Conduct which springs from reason cannot compete with conduct which springs from emotions or dispositions which grow out of emotions.

A mother's love and care for her child spring from emotions or from dispositions, shaped out of emotions. The philosopher's regard for his neighbour springs from reasoned altruism. Reasoned conduct is not constant or consistent, because reflection often tends to fail and all the relevant facts cannot always be attended to before action is ordered. Hesitation and deliberation, the essentials of all reasoned conduct, also tend to be prolonged. But conduct which springs from emotions or from tendencies shaped out of emotions is spontaneous, constant and consistent.

A mother may seem over-sacrificing, but rational appeals will not dissuade her from the path laid down for her by nature. When the child is in trouble, she will not sit and deliberate, but will at once set about doing what she thinks is good for the child. All her thoughts will bend to this end. It seems, therefore, that themes of moral reclamation will not succeed unless human individuals can be taught to act from dispositions and sentiments rooted in their natural emotions and impulses. When the call comes for action, response should not be held back by undue deliberation. It should spring spontaneously from within each individual and should not have to be forced from without by appeals to reason. "
Page-131
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf
So character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

After be declared himself a prophet, he started a war with Mecca and, after his victory, set about conquering the rest of Arabia. If he was a peaceful man before, it would appear that his religion made him violent!

Please don't jump to wrong conclusions:

"The life of the Holy Founder of Islam is like an open book, to any part of which one may turn and meet with interesting details. The life of no other Teacher or Prophet is as well- recorded and as accessible to study as is the life of the Holy Prophet. True, this abundance of recorded fact has given malicious critics their opportunity. But it is also true that when the criticisms have been examined and disposed of, the faith and devotion which result cannot be inspired by any other life.

Obscure lives escape criticism, but they fail to produce conviction and confidence in their devotees. Some disappointments and difficulties are bound to remain. But a life as rich in recorded detail as the Prophet's inspires reflection and, then, conviction. When criticism and false constructions have been liquidated, such a life is bound to endear itself to us completely and for ever. It should be evident, however, that the story of a life so open and so rich cannot even briefly be told. Only a glimpse of it can be attempted. But even a glimpse is worth while. A religious book, as we say, can have little appeal unless a study of it can be supplemented by a knowledge of its Teacher.

The point has been missed by many religions. The Hindu religion, for instance, upholds the Vedas, but of the Rishis who received the Vedas from God it is able to tell us nothing. The need to supplement a message by an account of the messenger does

not seem to have impressed itself upon Hindu exponents. Jewish and Christian scholars, on the other hand, do not hesitate to denounce their own Prophets. They forget that revelation which has failed to reclaim its recipient cannot be of much use to others"
Page-134
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf
The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

 

[Augustus]

"The life of the Holy Founder of Islam is like an open book, to any part of which one may turn and meet with interesting details. The life of no other Teacher or Prophet is as well- recorded and as accessible to study as is the life of the Holy Prophet. True, this abundance of recorded fact has given malicious critics their opportunity. But it is also true that when the criticisms have been examined and disposed of, the faith and devotion which result cannot be inspired by any other life.

Obscure lives escape criticism, but they fail to produce conviction and confidence in their devotees. Some disappointments and difficulties are bound to remain. But a life as rich in recorded detail as the Prophet's inspires reflection and, then, conviction.

There is an abundance of information written down 200+ years after he died.

For Muslims you have a special period of history with the Sahaba and the immediately following generations who are viewed as being morally superior to people born in either earlier or later generations. All of the hadith and sirah literature is premised upon the absolutely incorruptible nature of these people and the ability of later scholars to accurately and objectively judge the validity of information passed down through 10 generations. If you accept the Islamic perspective then you do indeed have a wealth of information.

On the other hand, if you apply the same historical standards to Muhammad that you do to Jesus, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or any other historical figure, then you are left with very little solid fact. You have a mass of late, contradictory and often implausible information , and biographies that get more detailed the later they were written, and often don't match with other aspects of the historical record. On these standards you can likely assume that Muhammad was a historical figure with a prophetic message, but beyond this it is hard to say much else as 'fact'.

A Christian will say Jesus' life is 'an open book', a Muslim will say Muhammad's is. A historian would say both are historical figures shrouded in myth, conjecture and whose lives we can have but fleeting glimpses into.

 

[paarsurrey]

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever. Please
Regards

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever. Please
Regards

Define 'peaceful'.

 

[paarsurrey]

Define 'peaceful'.

Muhammad's character defines fully in deeds as to what peaceful is:

“If the recipient is intractable the question arises, why did God choose him? Must He have done so? Neither supposition seems reasonable. To think that revelation fails to reclaim some recipients is as unreasonable as to think that God has no alternative except to choose incompetent recipients for some of His revelations. Yet ideas of this kind have found their way into different religions, possibly because of the distance which now divides them from their Founders or because human intellect, until the advent of Islam, was incapable of perceiving the error of these ideas. How important and valuable it is to keep together a book and its Teacher was realized very early in Islam.”
Page-134
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf
The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

You are ignoring that not long after Muhammad arrival in medina, Muhammad embarked in raiding and robbing merchant caravans. That's not an act of peaceful person.

This is what provoked Mecca into war.

And he started discord when he kick out one Jewish tribe after another from Medina, again not a act of a peaceful man.

When the Banu Qurayza surrendered, Muhammad did not stop the beheading of men who did not convert to Islam, or the selling of women and children into slavery. Beheading those who didn't accept Islam, is an act of compulsion and intimidation, making the Qur'an a lie when it stated there is no compulsion in Islam. Again, not act of peace.

Even after winning the war against Mecca, Muhammad still send his army throughout Arabia, threatening any who don't accept him as "Messenger of God". The siege of Ta'if (630) is another act of compulsion in Islam, when he reject the people's condition that they have their own religion. Again, demonstrating that Muhammad is not a peaceful man.

When he returned to northern Arabia (630), to avenge his defeat at Mu'tah (in 629), punitive expedition is not an act of peaceful religion.

Since coming to Medina in 623, it has been nothing but history of revenge and violence, showed that Islam being "religion of peace", is a complete lie.

 

[paarsurrey]

You are ignoring that not long after Muhammad arrival in medina, Muhammad embarked in raiding and robbing merchant caravans. That's not an act of peaceful person.
This is what provoked Mecca into war.
And he started discord when he kick out one Jewish tribe after another from Medina, again not a act of a peaceful man.
When the Banu Qurayza surrendered, Muhammad did not stop the beheading of men who did not convert to Islam, or the selling of women and children into slavery. Beheading those who didn't accept Islam, is an act of compulsion and intimidation, making the Qur'an a lie when it stated there is no compulsion in Islam. Again, not act of peace.
Even after winning the war against Mecca, Muhammad still send his army throughout Arabia, threatening any who don't accept him as "Messenger of God". The siege of Ta'if (630) is another act of compulsion in Islam, when he reject the people's condition that they have their own religion. Again, demonstrating that Muhammad is not a peaceful man.
When he returned to northern Arabia (630), to avenge his defeat at Mu'tah (in 629), punitive expedition is not an act of peaceful religion.
Since coming to Medina in 623, it has been nothing but history of revenge and violence, showed that Islam being "religion of peace", is a complete lie.

And that happened 13 long years after he was chosen by G-d to the office of Prophet/Messenger, the last in status.
Please have a peaceful patience we are getting to it chronologically from the accounts of life of Muhammad. You know sequence is important. Isn't it? Please
Regards

 

[gnostic]

And that happened 13 long years after he was chosen by G-d to the office of Prophet/Messenger, the last in status.
Please have a peaceful patience we are getting to it chronologically from the accounts of life of Muhammad. You know sequence is important. Isn't it? Please
Regards

You are just talking about the beginning of Muhammad's career as a prophet. You are ignoring what he did after arriving Medina in 623 CE, which were all far from peaceful acts.

Raiding and robbing caravans are not peaceful acts (623-624). Starting the war with Mecca with these raids are not peaceful acts. Taking revenges on people (Banu Qaynuqa in 624, Banu Qurayza in 630, Ta'if in 630, and northern Arabian tribes in 630) who didn't accept him in as a prophet are not peaceful acts. Condoning murders (assassinations in 624) are not peaceful acts.

You wrote:

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

The word "ever" would mean that no violence was ever used. Clearly you are ignoring nearly 10 years of raids, robbing people and battles that took place before he died in 632.

You are clearly contradicting yourself with this "never...ever" statement. First you wrote that he was "never violent, ever", but now you only want me to focus on his life before arriving Medina in 623, not afterward.

Wasn't Muhammad still a prophet between 623 and 632? Did Muhammad stop being a prophet in 623 CE?

 

[Milton Platt]

Thread open to all human beings whatever religion or no-religion they may belong to , please.
Regards

Why do religions concern themselves with "spreading"??? Makes is sound like some sort of contagion.

 

[VioletVortex]

If you want Islam to spread, you would need a lot of people with a peaceful view towards Islam.

 

[atanu]

Thread open to all human beings whatever religion or no-religion they may belong to , please.
Regards

There is no peace between Ahmediyyas and mainstream muslims. Ahmediyyas are not even considered muslims.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no peace between Ahmediyyas and mainstream muslims. Ahmediyyas are not even considered muslims.

That is no fault of Quran/Islam/Muhammad.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If you want Islam to spread, you would need a lot of people with a peaceful view towards Islam.

There you are right. We are using all possible peaceful means to that end and have spread to more than 207 countries of the world.
This also dispels the notion that Islam in its first phase under Muhammad was spread not peacefully.
Thanks and regards