Unfair opinions about Islam :(

[Lyndon]

I think the prophet Mohammad saw himself as sort of the Moses of the Arabic people, and was modeling their behaviour on the Israelites in the early Old Testament, certainly the Israelites came to Palestine from Egypt with the directive to divide and conquer, much like the early settlers to the Americas, its certainly not a model I would like to see emulated today.

 

[gsa]

I think the prophet Mohammad saw himself as sort of the Moses of the Arabic people, and was modeling their behaviour on the Israelites in the early Old Testament, certainly the Israelites came to Palestine from Egypt with the directive to divide and conquer, much like the early settlers to the Americas, its certainly not a model I would like to see emulated today.

Is this an admission it is built on violence and conquest?

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. Islam was/is supposed to be rule of law, regardless of attacks on Muslims. Accomplished through ultimatums and action until religion is for Allah alone - not until people are friendly or peaceful towards Muslims.

That's total nonsense .. you are one of those people who wish to create enmity by saying that the religion of Islam teaches to attack everybody .. IT DOES NOT!

 

[Sees]

That's total nonsense .. you are one of those who wish to create enmity by saying that the religion of Islam teaches to attack everybody .. IT DOES NOT!

Not what I said...ultimatums were given and attacks were in response to the answers nonbelievers gave. That's plain history and Islam per Qur'an and Hadith teachings.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's total nonsense .. you are one of those people who wish to create enmity by saying that the religion of Islam teaches to attack everybody .. IT DOES NOT!

So, how wrong exactly are the claims that the Quran and Muhammad teach that those who learn of Islam must either convert, submit to religious tax, or be warred against?

How agreed upon are the reasons why those claims are wrong?

What is the agreed upon justification for refusing those claims?

 

[YmirGF]

So, how wrong exactly are the claims that the Quran and Muhammad teach that those who learn of Islam must either convert, submit to religious tax, or be warred against?

How agreed upon are the reasons why those claims are wrong?

What is the agreed upon justification for refusing those claims?

And this is last thing I would expect from a group that espouses, "No compulsion in religion."

 

[Deidre]

Why is it that ''religious history'' is always hazy, at best. Never clear answers. Always contradicting information depending on the sources. I've read accounts that Muhammad was a war wager, and then I've read he was merely defending himself and his communities.

All religions have this hazy history. But, you don't see secular history, as hazy.

 

[gsa]

Why is it that ''religious history'' is always hazy, at best. Never clear answers. Always contradicting information depending on the sources. I've read accounts that Muhammad was a war wager, and then I've read he was merely defending himself and his communities.

All religions have this hazy history. But, you don't see secular history, as hazy.

Not the same kind of haze, certainly.

 

[YmirGF]

Why is it that ''religious history'' is always hazy, at best. Never clear answers. Always contradicting information depending on the sources. I've read accounts that Muhammad was a war wager, and then I've read he was merely defending himself and his communities.

All religions have this hazy history. But, you don't see secular history, as hazy.

But Deidre, virtually all sources we have about Muhammad are citations from his fanatical followers. There is very little written about him, by contemporaries, outside of the Arabian peninsula. The point is that those who chronicled his antics chose to report what they did as if there was nothing, even slightly, wrong with what he did. To this day, he is seen as the "perfect" example for all to follow, well by his fanatical followers, at least.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..To this day, he is seen as the "perfect" example for all to follow, well by his fanatical followers, at least.

Absolutely! I'm not following what many people are saying, though ie. attack or hate everybody who is not a Muslim .. it's simply not true.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be with him, was as generous to his enemies as he possibly could be

How do you think Islam spread, just through fear of the Muslims? Certainly not! For 10 years they were a small group who were ridiculed and oppressed. Almighty God, however, helped them through this and ordained Islam to persist!

All praise is due to the God, Most High!

 

[Jumi]

Well you know how Christianity was spread by the sword.

Northern Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They also chose to represent themselves as the good guys for conquering these lands and many people in these countries still believe that.

edit: this was in reply to Deidre

 

[YmirGF]

Absolutely! I'm not following what many people are saying, though ie. attack or hate everybody who is not a Muslim .. it's simply not true.

Well, a proselyting religion wouldn't get very far if it killed all non-believers, now would it. Islam reserves its contempt for those who oppose Islam.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be with him, was as generous to his enemies as he possibly could be

Tell that to the Banu Qurayza.

How do you think Islam spread, just through fear of the Muslims?

Early conversions were probably out of the "fear" that what Muhammad was saying was the truth.

 

[Sees]

Why is it that ''religious history'' is always hazy, at best. Never clear answers. Always contradicting information depending on the sources. I've read accounts that Muhammad was a war wager, and then I've read he was merely defending himself and his communities.

All religions have this hazy history. But, you don't see secular history, as hazy.

Islamic history is solid, but there has to be spins put on it for dissemination to nonbelieving folks. It's intensified heavily in the last couple decades.

It's not just don't air our dirty laundry because the past is the past, as per Christian response to folks who don't like Christian imperialism and such - it's "your a deceiving Islamaphobe for speaking about the history we speak about without any apologetic touch placed on it."

There is zero doubt that Muhammad wanted Islam to take over the Arabian peninsula and beyond - with no named stopping point. It was join our organization, submit to our organization, or face the consequences in this life and the Hereafter. There is no other version to the history. Only the Meccans and those who lost loved ones to raids or ultimatums...wanted the Muslims harmed or sent out. The emphasis on a hero who defended his people is a modern thing. Muslims in lots of places around the world generally don't have a problem with the history or think it was something to be ashamed of per internet sources and what you see here on this forum - quite the contrary, they are proud of what early Muslims did to grow and establish Allah's religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure Islam's history is even particularly hazy. I have yet to see much in the way of a serious controversy about how early Muslims made a point of being warlike, of how much later Muslims ravaged Nalanda simply to enforce Muslim expansionism, or of how Aurangzeb arrested and killed Guru Tegh Bahadur under accusations of blasphemy in the 17th century. And that is before considering more recent events.

For a religion that has no compulsion and leads to peace, Islam sure has its fair share of warmongers, and apparently has always had.

At which point are we allowed to say that Islam is warlike?

Edited to add: I must agree with YmirGF that it sure looks like it is on how to interpret that history that the controversy exists. The expansionism and insistence on conversion or submission are all but impossible to reasonably deny.

It just happens that seeing succesful military expansionism as something else instead of evidence of having God's favor is a fairly recent innovation, and one that may not have been fully realized by worldwide Muslims, while many people (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) have a somewhat dangerous tendency to assume the best of people and therefore refuse to accept the evidence.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm not sure Islam's history is even particularly hazy. I have yet to see much in the way of a serious controversy about how early Muslims made a point of being warlike, of how much later Muslims ravaged Nalanda simply to enforce Muslim expansionism, or of how Aurangzeb arrested and killed Guru Tegh Bahadur under accusations of blasphemy in the 17th century. And that is before considering more recent events.

For a religion that has no compulsion and leads to peace, Islam sure has its fair share of warmongers, and apparently has always had.

At which point are we allowed to say that Islam is warlike?

It sure seems to bring out the latent psychopath in some of its followers...

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is zero doubt that Muhammad wanted Islam to take over the Arabian peninsula and beyond - with no named stopping point. It was join our organization, submit to our organization, or face the consequences in this life and the Hereafter. There is no other version to the history..

zero doubt indeed .. hmph! The prophet Muhammad was not interested in conquest, you are a peddlar of lies .. either that, or you totally misunderstand his life .. you probably haven't even read "The Maccan crucible" .. have you?

 

[LuisDantas]

zero doubt indeed .. hmph! The prophet Muhammad was not interested in conquest,

Could you offer some evidence of that?

It sure looks otherwise from what we know of the Quran and the Ahadith.

Nor can one easily fail to notice that quite a few pious Muslims leaders were and are definitely interested in conquest. Do you think they misunderstood Islam?

you are a peddlar of lies .. either that, or you totally misunderstand his life .. you probably haven't even read "The Maccan crucible" .. have you?

The book by Zakaria Bashier, you mean? Also known as "The Meccan Crucible" and "The Makkan Crucible"?

Odds are good that he indeed did not. Not too many people seem to have. It is not a particularly easy book to find.

Maybe you can offer some other accounts of the Prophet's life that you find worth reading? I assume there are a few on the web these days.

 

[Sees]

I don't recall reading that specific book but I've read quite a lot on Muhammad's life per Muslim biographies.

Muhammad didn't stop with Medina and Mecca in his own lifetime per Hadith and the earliest Muslim historians...he dispatched groups of hundreds to grab other areas of the Arabian peninsula, even resending them at times to finish the job. Per Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari he said they were to conquer Egypt, Jerusalem, Persia, etc. - it's not stuff nonbelievers cooked up. A lot of Muslims treat this as Muhammad's prophecies - and them coming true.

You imagine polite door to door salesmen asking people nicely if they would like to join forces and convert or pay a tax with a smile on their face? Let alone the vast majority of Arabs, pagan Arabs, who didn't have the second option. It was join Islam and watch/assist in destruction of any pagan temples, artifacts...or perish.

What does your book/s say and what sources do they use outside of the standard ones? Access to the material isn't difficult.

Oh how I wish for a couple of Islamic scholars to participate on here from time to time who are willing to leave behind apologetics.

zero doubt indeed .. hmph! The prophet Muhammad was not interested in conquest, you are a peddlar of lies .. either that, or you totally misunderstand his life .. you probably haven't even read "The Maccan crucible" .. have you?

 

[Deidre]

At which point are we allowed to say that Islam is warlike?

For the statement to have credibility in modern times, it would mean the vast majority of Muslims would need to be supportive of war-like methods in gaining new 'recruits' to Islam, and/or be willing to wage war themselves against non-Muslims who don't convert. Do you honestly see the vast majority of those who identify themselves as Muslims, as falling into one of those two categories?

 

[MD]

For the statement to have credibility in modern times, it would mean the vast majority of Muslims would need to be supportive of war-like methods in gaining new 'recruits' to Islam, and/or be willing to wage war themselves against non-Muslims who don't convert. Do you honestly see the vast majority of those who identify themselves as Muslims, as falling into one of those two categories?

Just because the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany killed millions of people, doesn't mean that all Russians or Germans are brutal people. It doesn't even mean all Nazis or Politburo members were bad people.

It's the ideology, not the people. And especially an ideology that will not ever change since it's built on the belief that it is the final, literal, 100% eternal true word of God