Unfair opinions about Islam :(

[Deidre]

Excellent comment, Augustus.

This

 

[Sees]

It's true there could be a "wash" over the long run...my quote was initially dealing with Muhammad and early Islam, after "enough numbers were amassed to begin raids and initate battles" - the goal of the quoted words was to compare it's pristine years to others. It seems better wording could have prevented people from taking that as an opening to compare all of it's history since.

To me there is a big difference between how people live a religion centuries after the fact and those who do it side by side with the founder. Islam was and still is strict governance of lives and state by design, violent enforcement if necessary. Whereas this does not fit in with other religions in their pristine years and it doesn't reflect the words or actions of the founders.

I don't care much about the mass slaughter and oppression numbers winner throughout the last 1,400 years as far as this specific topic/thread and my posts. If we were getting into unfair misconceptions of Buddhism the violence of some groups in East Asia today doesn't mean much. Yet if Buddha subdued other traditions in India and enforced, lethally if necessary, a rise to power and his laws...we could say it reflects on what Buddhism really is at it's core. Especially if records of his teachings gave additional support.

Primarily the reason the link was given to highlight this.

I'll go ahead and say Christianity's treatment of people throughout the world was worse overall to get it out of focus and contention

Basically because they treated most other religions that way, a medieval legal loophole if you like. For the most part, the rulers were pragmatists.




Jizya was basically a conquered people tax, tribute. It was absolutely par for the course, standard behaviour at the time. To paint it as anything other than standard practice in late antiquity is mistaken. (Some leaders actually tried to prevent people from converting because they were more interested in revenue than expanding the faith.)

Progressive Muslims today tend to equate it to tax, the non-Muslim equivalent of Zakat. "until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." and that subdued means accepting the authority of the state. Historically though, the tax has been punitive.




How Islam is treated in comparison to other things is essential in deciding if it is fair or unfair.

You made the point that "Islam had more excessive violence and intolerance towards others than basically all other well known religions", which I consider to be an incorrect and unfair assessment over 1500 years of history.

This is not to say Muslims regimes have always been wonderful, cuddly and chivalrous, just that I don't see many points in history when they can be described as being more "excessively violent and intolerant" than their contemporaries. There are times when the have been above average, other times when they have been below but I just don't see the justification for considering them historically worse.

If you view Islamic societies as having a 1400 year history of being more violent and more intolerant than other societies, then you have a huge amount of evidence to support the contention that Islam is detrimental to society. With 1400 years of evidence then it is case closed. On the other hand, if you view Islamic societies as being no better or worse than their contemporaries over the course of their histories, then you are left with more optimistic possibilities.

Some Muslims look at Islam and sees the kind deeds of Muhammed, his compassion and tolerance, the less savoury incidents are contextualised and mitigated. Others see rules, rigidity and divine anger, where the less savoury aspects are maximised at the expense of the compassion. In religion, you see what you want to see.

For outsiders looking in, if you view its history as uniquely violent, then you are going to see everything that supports this view.

Going back to the OP, people who take the compassionate Muhammed as their guide rightly get upset when people say 'your religion is bad because A,B,C'. And they say 'A,B,C play no part in my religion. But the criticising person will say 'yes they do - look at my evidence for Islam being uniquely violent and intolerant'. This is why comparison is all important.

If people say 'well historically, it has been similar to others but it can't cope with modernity...' that is a different argument. How Islam evolves to meet changes in society is an ongoing process. The West is always held up as the shining example of how society should be, but the last hundred or so years in the West have been horrendously violent.

The normative values of the West are good, but in practice there is a huge amount to be critical of. A Muslim might look at the West and see colonialism, warfare, greed, inequality and hypocrisy. When they are then lectured about how superior the West is they might think 'hold on a second...'

Maybe the West will go back to industrial scale mass murders in the not too distant future, maybe there will be a new Islamic caliphate that addresses inequality better and remains more stable. Maybe the opposite will happen. Perhaps a strong binding ideology will be a good thing, maybe it will be a bad thing. Who knows?

We can't judge things based on a very short timescale so the 'modernity' thing will play itself out in due course. Based on the longer timescale, I still don't see how Islamic societies can be judged as being more violent and intolerant.

 

[Jumi]

Positive things about Islam:

Having taken a fresh look at Islam and reading some Quran I have learned that Muslims value honor. I can respect that even though I don't agree how it is defined or with the concept requiring belief in Allah or a book.

 

[Lyndon]

Buddhism, historically seems to have been a more peaceful religion, but even Buddhist countries had their despotic leaders and wars. And technically Kublai and Genghis Khan were Buddhist so go figure.

 

[Sees]

Buddhism, historically seems to have been a more peaceful religion, but even Buddhist countries had their despotic leaders and wars. And technically Kublai and Genghis Khan were Buddhist so go figure.

Do you think it reflects on the example and teachings of Buddha himself? So we could say it is at least possibly representative?

 

[Jumi]

Buddhism, historically seems to have been a more peaceful religion, but even Buddhist countries had their despotic leaders and wars. And technically Kublai and Genghis Khan were Buddhist so go figure.

Genghis Khan wasn't a Buddhist.

To quote from wikipedia

Genghis Khan was a tengrist, but was religiously tolerant and interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. He consulted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji.

Kublai on the other hand was Buddhist and used forced conversion...

 

[Lyndon]

The Buddha in his historic statements was not a complete pacifist, he was somewhat supportive of some warlords fighting wars in his region and times, telling them rather to be honourable warriors rather than not to fight, at least from what I've gathered on other Buddhist websites.

 

[Sees]

The Buddha in his historic statements was not a complete pacifist, he was somewhat supportive of some warlords fighting wars in his region and times, telling them rather to be honourable warriors rather than not to fight, at least from what I've gathered on other Buddhist websites.

To me that isn't bad at all - being I follow warrior friendly religious traditions, lived as a warrior and still train others to do so. It's the aspects and manner of it, the reasoning, etc. How we treat enemies reflects on us even more than how we treat our friends... is a universal understanding in my opinion. Why they are enemies much the same.

 

[Deidre]

I've been reading about Muhammad's life and I wonder why there is a contradiction of sorts between the actions he took against "apostates" and pagans...if one of the core principles of Islam is to not force religion on anyone. Muhammad made a point during his battles, of making examples of "backsliders" and what he considers traitors, by having them put to death.

So you know, I don't overlook this part of his history but maybe this is what he meant by repentance. He asked Allah for forgiveness a lot, so we may never know that end of it.

But the message of Islam is still peace and hope. An imperfect person delivering a perfect message.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But the message of Islam is still peace and hope.

Sure, no doubt about it. You see it everywhere in the Muslim world and beyond.

 

[YmirGF]

I've been reading about Muhammad's life and I wonder why there is a contradiction of sorts between the actions he took against "apostates" and pagans...if one of the core principles of Islam is to not force religion on anyone. Muhammad made a point during his battles, of making examples of "backsliders" and what he considers traitors, by having them put to death.

I'm glad you are at least aware of this. Personally, it makes him a huge hypocrite and hypocrites are reviled in Islam. Go figure.

So you know, I don't overlook this part of his history but maybe this is what he meant by repentance. He asked Allah for forgiveness a lot, so we may never know that end of it.

Forgiveness is all very well, Deidre, but would it not have been far more noble if he had forgiven his enemies? It's hard to fight someone who is smiling at you and handing you a flower.

But the message of Islam is still peace and hope. An imperfect person delivering a perfect message.

People really need to get over these limited ideas of what perfection is.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I'm glad you are at least aware of this. Personally, it makes him a huge hypocrite and hypocrites are reviled in Islam. Go figure.

Forgiveness is all very well, Deidre, but would it not have been far more noble if he had forgiven his enemies? It's hard to fight someone who is smiling at you and handing you a flower.

People really need to get over these limited ideas of what perfection is.

Is it possible for you to post a comment without being rude and calling other people's prophets hypocrites? He didn't go after non believers he was referring to the Arab Pagans which the Muslims were fighting at the time. This happens a lot when a brand new religion is born, that the majority ends up oppressing it. Christians faced such treatment at first as well.

 

[Deidre]

Sure, no doubt about it. You see it everywhere in the Muslim world and beyond.

hard to tell, but are u being sarcastic?

I'm glad you are at least aware of this. Personally, it makes him a huge hypocrite and hypocrites are reviled in Islam. Go figure.

Forgiveness is all very well, Deidre, but would it not have been far more noble if he had forgiven his enemies? It's hard to fight someone who is smiling at you and handing you a flower.

People really need to get over these limited ideas of what perfection is.

Perfection meaning we should strive to be ''agape'' love for all. That’s how I view it.

What do you make of this?

Was Muhammad Really a Man of Peace? - Muslim Character - counsels - OnIslam.net

 

[leibowde84]

I would never have known how Islam is viewed in the states, until I have taken an interest in it myself, and have shared that with a few of my offline friends, and online ones, as well. I'm not expecting anyone to support my decision to explore Islam, but I'm sadly surprised by the negative comments, and nasty remarks actually, by some.

To people who suffer from persecution of any type because of your faith, giving you a hug here.

I sometimes don't know how to answer people when they offer nasty remarks about Islam, I try my best to share what the faith is actually about, but they don't want to listen. Is it best to just stay quiet? Idk. I never dealt with this really, as a Christian. (except many mock Christians, I know)

I agree that this is a problem, but not all Muslims who aren't "extremists" are innocent. I would strongly argue that those Muslims who chose to speak out against the recent cartoonists who were brutally murdered instead of placing all blame squarely on the murderers are not completely innocent. That was startling to me that they were unable to ignore the cartoons in the light of the atrocities committed by others who were offended by them. I know many Muslims who are "innocent" like you say, but they were the first of my friends to honor the cartoonists and refuse to complain about the drawings. The entire Islamic community has a responsibility to show the world that no amount of offense toward anyone's faith should ever justify violence. Once that message is spread by every Imam in this country, Islam will be treated with more respect.

 

[Lyndon]

Just as the Christians that supported the carpet bombing of Iraq in the Persian gulf wars are not innocent, Israeli's that supported the massive one sided destruction of Gaza, etc etc. Why do all your bad guys have to be a different religion than you???

 

[Sees]

hard to tell, but are u being sarcastic?




Perfection meaning we should strive to be ''agape'' love for all. That’s how I view it.

What do you make of this?

Was Muhammad Really a Man of Peace? - Muslim Character - counsels - OnIslam.net

I think the link is full of truths and falsehoods.
Some of it depends on how you view things.

When something says Muhammad never killed innocent people - does a message from the angel Gabriel saying a person is plotting against him give Muhammad the right to condemn as guilty and kill? Several leaders of non-Muslim tribes, Arab and Jewish, were assassinated this way.

Hundreds of Banu Qurayza Jews beheaded (500-900) and probably a 1,500+ women and children sold to slavery because of a supposed plot...again no real action condemning the people. I'd say they were innocent but some Muslim historians will say it again was given the go ahead by Gabriel - perfect confirmation. Their only actions were previously helping Muhammad. I think he needed more money, personally. It all was Muslim property after this.

The pagans who didn't convert or didn't want their temples destroyed again...of course innocent to me. Different beliefs don't mean guilty. Kaaba/Mecca wasn't the only temple and holy place for pagan Arabs. Hundreds to thousands died if they didn't immediately accept the invitation to Islam, on who knows how many occasions. These were also on important trade routes many times.

The folks who were in caravan travel and were raided by Muhammad to gain funds and property were only guilty of being non-Muslims traveling without an army.

 

[Lyndon]

Very much like the modern Americans and their quest for oil in Middle East countries like Iraq and Libya.

 

[Sees]

Lyndon...that stuff is for a whole other thread. Opinions on Islam is this thread's purpose, per the title.

 

[Lyndon]

Sorry but your opinion on Islam is relevant to this discussion. A balanced view treats all religions by the same standards, not an especially critical one to Islam only.

 

[Sees]

Sorry but your opinion on Islam is relevant to this discussion. A balanced view treats all religions by the same standards, not an especially critical one to Islam only.

You're talking about the war in Iraq carried out by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Atheists, etc. as if it is comparing religions....it's not.