Islam: Religion of Peace or Religion for War?

[Jabar]

Say what...

It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.

Yes, but it is also wrongly interpreted.

Do not just say apostasy is approved by Qur'an because Sharia Law is derived from the Qur'an.

Look at the parts that agree and not.

You made a false accusation.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes, but it is also wrongly interpreted.

Do not just say apostasy is approved by Qur'an because Sharia Law is derived from the Qur'an.

Look at the parts that agree and not.

You made a false accusation.

So, the Quran does not say to execute apostates. That directive comes from Sharia Law. Ok, fine.

That means that Islam is not "according to the Quran" in everything, but rather the whims of humans that make up the court that dictates Sharia Law.

It also means that any action commanded by Sharia Law that is not in the Quran, is NOT a commandment from God, but rather some ******* of a human being.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

"The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to... “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

The claim that ISIS is not truly Islamic is false. It may not be your brand of Islam, but it is Islam. These monsters follow the Koran, as the article above states, "in punctilious detail." This is Islam as it existed in Mohammad's day. The article has much more to say about why this is so, and if true -- and I believe it is -- then the real problem is the Koran itself.

The root of the problem here is that the Qur'aan and the example of Muhammad (s) are taken out of context. Now, you've no doubt heard the 'this verse has been taken out of context' refrain a fair few times before. But I go further than most when I say this. Far too many Muslims (and perhaps non-Muslims too) believe that Islaam means following the Qur'aan and every little thing Muhammad (s) did to the letter. But the Qur'aan in its entirety, and the way Muhammad (s) lived the Qur'aan, were of its time and place, the right way to serve God in that time and place. The Qur'aan was never intended as a blueprint for all time and every place. I have no argument with ISIS' attempts to create an Islaamic State, run solely in accordance with Allaah's Laws. In that they do the right thing. The problem comes with how they are going about it, and the nature of the State they seek to create. We all live in a different time, and most of us a different place. In Muhammad's (s) time and place, the dictates of the Qur'aan were just and fair, and his example of living the Qur'aan the best (keep in mind also that the Ahaadeeth are not all a good record of Muhammad's life, some are authentic, some not). In this day and age, some of them would not be just or fair, and some perhaps even barbaric. It is by taking verses and practices that were fit for that time and place and using them as the basis for creating a State in this time/place that the likes of ISIS (and they are far from alone) go astray.

 

[blue taylor]

"In that they do the right thing?"

What about the people who have lived in this area before the arrival of Islam. What about the Zoroastrians, Yazidi, Jews, Christians? Why would they want to live in an IS? They would not. That's why they are being killed off by ISIS. An Islamic state may be fine for Muslims but basically causes genocide for people of other religions. The world is waiting for Islam to rid itself of radicals. This will never happen because Islam silently approves of them. What you don't see is thousands of Muslims volunteering and going to the middle east to fight ISIS. Instead you see thousands of Muslims volunteering and going to fight with ISIS. While tens of thousands of young men of military age flee ISIS and cowardly turn their backs on the IS, others including a small amount of caring Muslims have gone over to fight ISIS. As you have said, until Islam brings itself into the 21st century, it will continue on it's present course.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

"In that they do the right thing?"

What about the people who have lived in this area before the arrival of Islam. What about the Zoroastrians, Yazidi, Jews, Christians? Why would they want to live in an IS? They would not. That's why they are being killed off by ISIS. An Islamic state may be fine for Muslims but basically causes genocide for people of other religions. The world is waiting for Islam to rid itself of radicals. This will never happen because Islam silently approves of them. What you don't see is thousands of Muslims volunteering and going to the middle east to fight ISIS. Instead you see thousands of Muslims volunteering and going to fight with ISIS. While tens of thousands of young men of military age flee ISIS and cowardly turn their backs on the IS, others including a small amount of caring Muslims have gone over to fight ISIS. As you have said, until Islam brings itself into the 21st century, it will continue on it's present course.

I never said an Islaamic State should be created in the area that ISIS currently operate in (although, in principle, it could). And the kind of Islaamic State I seek to establish is not one where people live in fear of their lives. On the contrary, it is one that is more akin to the kind of minimal state that some libertarians argue for.

 

[Marsh]

We all live in a different time, and most of us a different place. In Muhammad's (s) time and place, the dictates of the Qur'aan were just and fair

The last couple of days I have been reading about the Islamic conquests and the events that followed. The horrendous acts committed in the name of Allah were both barbaric and inhuman -- in any era. If you think Islam was just, then you simply don't know anything about the history of your religion. What followed in the wake of the conquests was far worse than anything I had imagined. I knew about the burdensome tax all non-Muslims were required to pay, what I didn't know was that if they couldn't pay they were forced to select one of their own children to make up the difference in the tax they owed. Later, laws were instituted requiring fathers to bring their children to an appointed place, each year, were the local officials would choose one of the children himself, as payment, in addition to the tax. Some unscrupulous rulers took even more children than the law allotted them and then sold the excess back to the fathers. If the parents didn't have the funds to pay then the child was simply sold into slavery. This barbaric practice was not outlawed until the 18th century. Millions converted to Islam rather then face these inhuman laws -- and these acts only scratch the surface of what non-Muslims suffered.

 

[Marsh]

So, the Quran does not say to execute apostates. That directive comes from Sharia Law. Ok, fine.

No, the Koran does say this. It is what Mohammad himself ordered and so the precedent was set that is followed to this day. I quoted the passage a few posts back.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The last couple of days I have been reading about the Islamic conquests and the events that followed. The horrendous acts committed in the name of Allah were both barbaric and inhuman -- in any era. If you think Islam was just, then you simply don't know anything about the history of your religion. What followed in the wake of the conquests was far worse than anything I had imagined. I knew about the burdensome tax all non-Muslims were required to pay, what I didn't know was that if they couldn't pay they were forced to select one of their own children to make up the difference in the tax they owed. Later, laws were instituted requiring fathers to bring their children to an appointed place, each year, were the local officials would choose one of the children himself, as payment, in addition to the tax. Some unscrupulous rulers took even more children than the law allotted them and then sold the excess back to the fathers. If the parents didn't have the funds to pay then the child was simply sold into slavery. This barbaric practice was not outlawed until the 18th century. Millions converted to Islam rather then face these inhuman laws -- and these acts only scratch the surface of what non-Muslims suffered.

I draw a distinction between the Islaam that Muhammad (s) practiced and the later forms of Islaam that arose after his death. I do not deny that many horrendous acts were committed in the Name of Allaah in later periods, as these forms of Islaam were spread across southwestern Asia, North Africa, and beyond. But these represent deviations from Allaah's Laws and the example of Muhammad (s).

 

[Marsh]

I draw a distinction between the Islaam that Muhammad (s) practiced and the later forms of Islaam that arose after his death. I do not deny that many horrendous acts were committed in the Name of Allaah in later periods, as these forms of Islaam were spread across southwestern Asia, North Africa, and beyond. But these represent deviations from Allaah's Laws and the example of Muhammad (s).

No, most of these injustices were continuations of what Mohammad himself started. Isn't it enough to recognize that the terrible treatments, and in some cases the extermination of whole peoples, began under the Prophet and carried on -- nonstop to the present time? What makes you think the behaviour of Islamists will ever change? You can protest to the end of time that the Koran and Hadeth are being misinterpreted, but at some point you have to own up to the fact that the words in these holy books are at the root of all the terrible things that have happened in the name of Allah. I look at all the Muslim countries in the world and I don't see anything good happening in any of them.

PS. Is the jizya still paid in Muslim countries? I've read that in some UK prisons Muslim prisoners are forcing non-Muslims to pay a protection tax, unless they convert to Islam.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

No, most of these injustices were continuations of what Mohammad himself started. Isn't it enough to recognize that the terrible treatments, and in some cases the extermination of whole peoples, began under the Prophet and carried on -- nonstop to the present time? What makes you think the behaviour of Islamists will ever change? You can protest to the end of time that the Koran and Hadeth are being misinterpreted, but at some point you have to own up to the fact that the words in these holy books are at the root of all the terrible things that have happened in the name of Allah. I look at all the Muslim countries in the world and I don't see anything good happening in any of them.

PS. Is the jizya still paid in Muslim countries? I've read that in some UK prisons Muslim prisoners are forcing non-Muslims to pay a protection tax, unless they convert to Islam.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Marsh]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Mohammad exterminated the last Jews in Medina, did he not? He ordered the beheading of 600 to 800 men and pubescent boys (if they were starting to grow pubic hair he beheaded them). The women and remaining children he forced into slavery. The weapons and horses for the wars he fought were paid for by the taking and selling of prisoners as slaves. Did he not say there was to be only one religion in Arabia. Those pagans, Jews, and Christians who would not join him he wiped out. Is this also not true?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think both, peace and war. Sometimes peace can never be realized without war, so I believe Islam had to have teachings about war to at least be prepared to hold peace against invading external powers. Was is not just to attack, it is to defend too. I believe religions without war teachings in them are incomplete religions.

I however believe the war part is a means not a goal, while peace is mainly a goal.

 

[blue taylor]

I think both, peace and war. Sometimes peace can never be realized without war, so I believe Islam had to have teachings about war to at least be prepared to hold peace against invading external powers. Was is not just to attack, it is to defend too. I believe religions without war teachings in them are incomplete religions.

I however believe the war part is a means not a goal, while peace is mainly a goal.

Religions without war teachings are incomplete? To many people, probably most people, that would be the kind of religion they most probably would tolerate. To people in America that statement would seem ridiculous. But however Americans don't seem to care how many wars it's government is involved with or why. It's culture. Christians don't do wars anymore, they let their governments do it. Muslims should do the same, that way the blame goes to politicians.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Religions without war teachings are incomplete? To many people, probably most people, that would be the kind of religion they most probably would tolerate. To people in America that statement would seem ridiculous. But however Americans don't seem to care how many wars it's government is involved with or why. It's culture. Christians don't do wars anymore, they let their governments do it. Muslims should do the same, that way the blame goes to politicians.

Yes, any law, not even just religion, without war plans is incomplete. The world is not a colorful peaceful place to live without having a strength to protect. War is not necessarily about oppression, it is about defense too. Some people never tasted fear like in other countries plagued with war to know that defense to protect also requires warfare preparations. And no, it is not something to be taught to and done by everyone of course, but specific trained personnel chosen to be on the protection side. In the past many countries had their people enslaved, resources stolen and land overtaken because their warfare tactics were so weak or maybe non existent.

Christians don't do it yet let their govt do it? What difference does it make if they "let" "their" govt do it? Also, I don't think all armies, American for example, have 0% Christians, there must be at least some. Also, it is not like all Muslims do it. I'm Muslim and I don't do it, as well as millions of other Muslims.

 

[blue taylor]

Yes, any law, not even just religion, without war plans is incomplete. The world is not a colorful peaceful place to live without having a strength to protect. War is not necessarily about oppression, it is about defense too. Some people never tasted fear like in other countries plagued with war to know that defense to protect also requires warfare preparations. And no, it is not something to be taught to and done by everyone of course, but specific trained personnel chosen to be on the protection side. In the past many countries had their people enslaved, resources stolen and land overtaken because their warfare tactics were so weak or maybe non existent.

Christians don't do it yet let their govt do it? What difference does it make if they "let" "their" govt do it? Also, I don't think all armies, American for example, have 0% Christians, there must be at least some. Also, it is not like all Muslims do it. I'm Muslim and I don't do it, as well as millions of other Muslims.

You must not be American. I was taking a shot at Christians who look the other way while the gov does the dirty work. You know like "Mr Bushes War".

 

[Smart_Guy]

You must not be American. I was taking a shot at Christians who look the other way while the gov does the dirty work. You know like "Mr Bushes War".

Actually, I'm Saudi. Nice to meet you

American civilians are nice people and I like them.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Mohammad exterminated the last Jews in Medina, did he not? He ordered the beheading of 600 to 800 men and pubescent boys (if they were starting to grow pubic hair he beheaded them). The women and remaining children he forced into slavery. The weapons and horses for the wars he fought were paid for by the taking and selling of prisoners as slaves. Did he not say there was to be only one religion in Arabia. Those pagans, Jews, and Christians who would not join him he wiped out. Is this also not true?

As I think I've said previously, Muhammad (s) did what he had to do in the circumstances in which he found himself to establish a safe and secure place for himself and his followers to serve God. He did not make any of these decisions lightly. And the state he established was a just one. These actions are categorically different from the kinds of campaigns waged by many of those who came after him, to establish states which were not just.

 

[Marsh]

As I think I've said previously, Muhammad (s) did what he had to do in the circumstances in which he found himself to establish a safe and secure place for himself and his followers to serve God. He did not make any of these decisions lightly. And the state he established was a just one. These actions are categorically different from the kinds of campaigns waged by many of those who came after him, to establish states which were not just.

Ya'quub, Mohammad exterminated the Jews and Christians in Medina and the entire Arabian peninsula, and he killed or force converted the pagans. You can claim this was just, but only by making a mockery of your sense of justice. As it says in the Hadith: “It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.” (Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith 4366). Mohammad set the precedent followed by all Muslims that came after him.

 

[Raahim]

"The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to... “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

The claim that ISIS is not truly Islamic is false. It may not be your brand of Islam, but it is Islam. These monsters follow the Koran, as the article above states, "in punctilious detail." This is Islam as it existed in Mohammad's day. The article has much more to say about why this is so, and if true -- and I believe it is -- then the real problem is the Koran itself.

So when it's bad it's Islam, but when it's good it's false Islam? Those monsters don't follow the Qur'an & it's far from what Islam looked at the time of the Prophet ﷺ.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

I don't know should I cry or laugh at this statement, ISIS is a collection of psychopaths and it might be considered as a religious group but I really doubt they have proper religious practice as Muslims should have. The only Islamic thing ISIS has is the "Islamic" in their name, nothing else about them is true Islam, they are led by politics and revenge to the West, nothing more.

 

[Augustus]

Mohammad exterminated the Jews and Christians in Medina and the entire Arabian peninsula, and he killed or force converted the pagans.

Many of those who participated in the 'Arab' conquests were Jews and Christians so this doesn't really hold much weight.

Mohammad set the precedent followed by all Muslims that came after him.

Much of what Muhammed 'said' is from jurists in 9th C Iraq.

This is all theology, not history. Just like the Bible is a theological text rather than one concerned with portraying an accurate historicity.

I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim

Muhammed's religious community didn't appear to refer to themselves as Muslims though. They used the terms mu'minun and muhajirun. Muslim doesn't appear in any inscriptions for the best part of a century.