Well my position is this (and also to YmirGF). You have yet not understood the basic idea of Islam. I will try to explain as I see it.
It is my suggestion that you are assuming too much.
That what you are commonly thinking of as Islam is only the external face of how in the Prophet Muhammad's time the realities of Islam were executed.
Yet you would have us believe that these people reflected the perfect understanding, the very model of behavior for ALL of humanity. Supposedly they are in harmony with their world and yet reality clearly shows us that that is not the case, but the whitewashed narrative does make a pretty nice story. It is my rather bold suggestion that people in harmony, inwards and out, do not have enemies who are out to get them. Frankly, the idea that people living in harmony would be the object of oppression is laughable.
In truth Islam is but another name for an attitude of the heart. To recognize there is an Absolute Reality who
("who" for the purpose of grammar here, it is not really postulated that the Reality has to be interpreted solely as an entity)
is the really Real and which underlines all actions, seemingly good or bad, is the crux of Islam.
I understand how this type of idea could appeal to those who have little understanding of the reality being expressed. The very idea is an affront to nature. Everything changes - literally everything - and yet some pretend there is this "hidden" aspect of reality that is perfect and beyond change. To insulate their stunted thinking they give this imagined reality the designations of being Absolute and inviolate. What they don't admit, nay cannot admit, is that this vision of reality tells more about themselves than it does about any supposed reality they pretend to perceive.
There is a hidden understanding of this Reality inside us too, only that is veiled by ignorance built up by selfish and ego centric ideas. Since the goal of Islam is recognizing this Reality, or to gain knowledge of it, so these ego-centric ideas must be washed away so that the veil can be torn. These ego-centric ideas will automatically be washed away if we let natural harmony prevail within and outside us; that is so because it is in the inbuilt nature of man to be good and be righteous.
And yet, woe betide the hide of any mortal that gets in the way of Muslims feeling their oats of religious fervor. How fragile this so-called harmony is. I wouldn't call it harmony, I'd call it a well crafted facade that is easily cast aside when threatened or offended.
To achieve this inside and outside harmony (or as it is commonly translated as inner and outward "peace", the literal meaning of Islam) is the goal.
And yet, one can only wonder why so very few Muslims have ever come close to this goal. Personally, I'm inclined to blame the system rather than the weakness and foibles of the practitioners.
That said, I am getting a bit impatient with ideologies that make sport of slamming the ego of individuals, like it is some dirty second cousin to the soul. One would think that reasonable theologies would tend to nurture the ego, to make it feel less threatened, to make it feel appreciated. The idea being that a happy ego has no problem with stepping aside to let larger aspects of identity shine through. If you want peace, that is how you will find it.
Now as is obviously clear, depending on the people, the society, the understanding of human issues and their relative importance and the technological age one is living in, it varies as to how people achieve this peace within and outside them.
I would tend to disagree, but would be intrigued by a further elaboration on this point. My thinking is that the common thread here is that human animals are human animals and have always been. Attaining this alleged state of peace should, in theory, be more or less the same throughout, unless you are referring to relatively meaningless outwards signs of piety, which would obviously vary.
You show disgust on slavery today, maybe a million years from now, the age will be such that animals and man will be treated equally and to own animals will be thought of as a similar offense as slavery and thus not conducive to inner and outer peace.
"You show disgust on slavery today" tells me that you do not include yourself in that sentiment. That is VERY instructive. It is baffling to me how far you are willing to stretch credulity to make your point, A-ManESL I will give you some extra credit for a relatively well written attempt at explaining concepts that are somewhat difficult to express, though ultimately, the attempted explanation, in my judgment, fails.
So it clear that whilst these issues themselves are dependent on the society, the attitude that harmony has to be achieved can be present in all societies.
In all fairness, A-ManESL, your curious sense of harmony does not sound like something I would like to see reflected in humanity. In my view, the sooner these false assumptions about reality are consigned to the waste bin of scrapped ideals, the better for us all. Then maybe, just maybe, we can get on to what harmony is all about.
What is essential is the understanding of this attitude which is absolutely valid no matter the context or the age.
Not surprisingly, I beg to differ, A-ManESL. How can you say an assumption about reality is always valid? Is there no possibility that the idea could not be overturned some day?
The roadmap through which this attitude expresses itself is always contingent upon the period one lives in. The external actions of Prophet Muhammad, the verses of the Quran which you quote are in reference to achieving peace (inner and outer) in that period. (That they should be interpreted in context and not as absolute to be applied at all places and all times is also the opinion of the theologian scholar Fazlur Rehman, if you perchance are interested in reading about this more)
So achieving peace by engaging in slavery? Achieving peace by vanquishing anyone who does not agree with Islam?
In this view Islam is no different from any other religion. Indeed I posit, that for this reason, the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) never asked true adherents of other faiths to follow his "way of life" (which we commonly term Islam) and give up their former faiths. For being true to one's faith, no matter what external name that faith has, is the going back to Islam. In fact, the word Islam or religion itself lose any meaning at that level, for all religions are one. (known as wahdat-e-deen in relevant literature).
Wait a second. You say that Muhammad never asked "true adherents" of other faiths to follow his way of life (IE. to adopt Islam)? Why then the call to Islam? Or are you using the term "true adherents" as a weasel word descriptor to gloss over his many appeals for people to convert/revert to Islam? Obviously, from how you phrase that, you are meaning that the call was only given to those non-believers who were not true to their own faith. That is as ludicrous as it is unseemly.
