What do you know about Islam?

[kejos]

And yet in the land in which you live in, Islam was first introduced by a military invasion led by the Umayyads.

Islam was involved in a battle every other year, on average, for the first two hundred years of its existence, and most of those battles occurred in places in which Islam was not then accepted.

 

[kejos]

Arab christians now are the strongest proof

Are they in the majority in N. Africa?

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

And yet in the land in which you live in, Islam was first introduced by a military invasion led by the Umayyads.

As I said and stated before , Islam was forced on no individual. Yes, Islam rules but no one is forced into it, if you want to stay christian you stay, you just stay whatever you are, and if you choose to revert to Islam than you'll be welcomed.

And just as a simple example, we still have churches in my town that rings their bell the sunday so.. While in the democratic world, it is not allowed for muslims to call for prayer. You see the paradoxe here?

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Islam was involved in a battle every other year, on average, for the first two hundred years of its existence, and most of those battles occurred in places in which Islam was not then accepted.

Yes, who said you should accept it first before Islam enters your land??

When it enters, then you have the whole right to stay on your religion or to follow Islam.

 

[Caladan]

As I said and stated before , Islam was forced on no individual. Yes, Islam rules but no one is forced into it, if you want to stay christian you stay, you just stay whatever you are, and if you choose to revert to Islam than you'll be welcomed.

And yet the native Berbers who were not Muslim fought fiercely against the invading Muslims. Islam became dominate only after Islamic conquest and the Arabization of Berber lands.

And just as a simple example, we still have churches in my town that rings their bell the sunday so.. While in the democratic world, it is not allowed for muslims to call for prayer. You see the paradoxe here?

Muslims call for prayer every day across Israel.

 

[kejos]

Yes, who said you should accept it first before Islam enters your land??

When it enters, then you have the whole right to stay on your religion or to follow Islam.

We see the great problem of the modern world. Violence is ok by Muslims.

 

[Badran]

We see the great problem of the modern world. Violence is ok by Muslims.

I can only guess you are talking about radicals, not all muslims, right?

 

[kejos]

I can only guess you are talking about radicals, not all muslims, right?

Muslims, like Roman Catholics, have to come clean about their history. Catholicism would not exist but for compulsory baptism, and Islam likewise would not exist but for military conquest and coercion. So all Muslims are, in a sense, violent people because they condone violence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Muslims, like Roman Catholics, have to come clean about their history. Catholicism would not exist but for compulsory baptism, and Islam likewise would not exist but for military conquest and coercion. So all Muslims are, in a sense, violent people because they condone violence.

With all due respect, I don't think that is a very fair or a very wise thing to say.

Calling the likes of .lava, Badran and Fatima Bintu Islam "violent people" will only weaken your words. There are violent Muslims and they worry me very much. They are nothing like those three.

Denouncing violence is proper and needed. I would even go so far as to say that Muslims generally need to take a step back and question how partial they have been. But saying that they are all violent is simply not at all accurate.

 

[Aquitaine]

Of course, no atheist believe so , but theres a difference between one who read Quran and one who didnt read it, so which one are you?

I haven't read the Koran. Also I'm not an Atheist

 

[kejos]

With all due respect, I don't think that is a very fair or a very wise thing to say.

Maybe you think it is a very wise and fair thing to say.

Debate is about facts and logic, and those who cannot deal with those commodities have nothing admirable to say.

 

[Caladan]

Arab christians now are the strongest proof that there was no compulsion on them to accept Islam, otherwise you wont find any chistian in the arab world or any land conquered by muslims.

They are a strong proof that what was once a thriving Christian community became a minority in what has became Dar al-Islam.
"The conventional historical view is that the conquest of North Africa by the Islamic Umayyad Caliphate between AD 647–709 effectively ended Catholicism in Africa for several centuries."

Umayyad conquest of North Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If they are not the commonest, that means either they reverted ( you know that whole countries used to revert in the time of conquers?? ) , or left because they did not like being under muslims maybe. But I dont think its the latter, since at that time christians were living far better under muslims than under christians themselves in the european world and other, where the church used to bring poverty and injustice to their countries, and thats a very well known fact I guess.

Are we playing a new game? which is more cruel, Western Christianity or Islam? are you trying to tell us that people are better off conquered by Islam because the other guy is worse?

 

[Badran]

Muslims, like Roman Catholics, have to come clean about their history. Catholicism would not exist but for compulsory baptism, and Islam likewise would not exist but for military conquest and coercion. So all Muslims are, in a sense, violent people because they condone violence.

Okay, but there are three problems here:

1) This your view of their history. (which means we'll have to turn this into a history discussion).

2) We don't overlook anything violent done by other muslims, or at least not all of us do. I have no problem saying that those particular muslims did wrong in that particular situation, for more than one reason. One of them, is that the actions of some muslims represent nothing to me in regard to what Islam teaches. Another reason is that i believe talking such denying attitude only strengthens some people's anger or disagreement with certain things done by some Muslims.

3) This is a nice thread created for people to come share their understanding of Islam's teachings, and what they know of it. yet, it's turned into attacking Islam needlessly, and going off topic, while not achieving any of the aims of the thread.

So, i hope you would be more constructive, if not for anything, do it because making us take the defensive doesn't result in a good discussion.

 

[xkatz]

I would like to know about each person what they know about Islam?

It's a strictly monotheistic religion. Islam stands for submission, as in submission to God, which is the objective of the religion. The religion was basically founded by Muhammad, although Muslims do recognize Jesus, Moses, and other biblical figures as prophets, and in the cases of Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses, messengers of God. The goal of Islam is (in my opinion) is to spiritually perfect oneself for the next life, were they are to be judged by God. The main scripture is the Koran, which is said to be revealed, and another important piece of scripture in Islam are the Hadiths, which are basically sayings of Muhammad (at least as far as I know). Muslims pray five times a day, towards Mecca/the Kaaba. Like Judaism, Islam has codified religious laws, known as Sharia. That is all I really know, I am not expert when it comes to Islam really...

 

[kejos]

Okay, but there are three problems here:

1) This your view of their history. (which means we'll have to turn this into a history discussion).

That isn't necessarily a problem, is it. It's only a problem if my view of history is substantially inaccurate.

2) We don't overlook anything violent done by other muslims, or at least not all of us do. I have no problem saying that those particular muslims did wrong in that particular situation, for more than one reason.

That's good, but does it go far enough? For one thing, those particular Muslims were all the Muslims of their time, because they all partook in some way in violence, if only by failing to condemn it. Second, does your attitude count much if it is not also those of current Muslim leaders? If those men will state as you have, in public, the situation will change. They will, of course have to ask themselves whether Islam is a valid belief if it has been so closely associated with violence, because others will. (Many Catholics have left Catholicism on learning of the history of their faith.)

One of them, is that the actions of some muslims represent nothing to me in regard to what Islam teaches.

One can find the words 'fight' and 'tax' throughout the Qur'an.

Another reason is that i believe talking such denying attitude only strengthens some people's anger or disagreement with certain things done by some Muslims.

I think you're right there.

3) This is a nice thread

That depends, doesn't it. It's a debating thread, and debates are not always comfortable. There are other threads for nice discussion.

created for people to come share their understanding of Islam's teachings, and what they know of it. yet, it's turned into attacking Islam needlessly,

It's not an attack, it's an attempt to get people to think logically and informedly about Islam.

 

[Badran]

That isn't necessarily a problem, is it. It's only a problem if my view of history is substantially inaccurate.

No, of course it is not a problem on it's own. I just don't think this thread is the place for this discussion.

That's good, but does it go far enough? For one thing, those particular Muslims were all the Muslims of their time, because they all partook in some way in violence, if only by failing to condemn it. Second, does your attitude count much if it is not also those of current Muslim leaders? If those men will state as you have, in public, the situation will change. They will, of course have to ask themselves whether Islam is a valid belief if it has been so closely associated with violence, because others will. (Many Catholics have left Catholicism on learning of the history of their faith.)

I don't think that's a valid reason to leave one's religion, what about the teachings, what about the fact that over a billion catholic today exists, while most of them do not practice violence. However, i agree that we should denounce whatever violence that was practiced by some Muslims, but we're not responsible for it, neither is the religion. I mean also the conclusion about that if Islam wasn't spread by force it wouldn't exist today isn't very accurate, today that is not the case, yet Islam is still spreading hugely and many people become Muslims independently.

One can find the words 'fight' and 'tax' throughout the Qur'an.

Yes of course, well there are situations were these things would be okay. Also, they way most of us interpret and are taught to interpret those verses, doesn't result in unjustifiable violence, or endorsing it. Only so for the radicals who are violent anyway, and who deliberately misinterpret these verses.

That depends, doesn't it. It's a debating thread, and debates are not always comfortable. There are other threads for nice discussion.

I know this is the general religious debate section. I always react or reply depending on the attitude of the OP, i think it is clear through that nice OP, that this thread's aim is not really an intense debate. You are free of course to still post which ever arguments you'd like to post, i just think the thread was heading for an in-constructive debate. I mean debate is not bad, i'm just talking about how we're going to do it.

 

[it's_sam]

i wouldnt say it's islam that people are attacking it's the muslim peoples inability to agree on whats justified in the eyes of their people. For a long time previous to recent times muslim influence was threatened by india's lack thereof, meaning peace at all cost. So muslim was caught between one side killing at all cost and the other side not killing at all cost. Obviousely not killing is the rightous choice in this but there were enough on both sides willing to die for this control that it has never really stopped. The facts are there are two sides to muslim rule, and one side if being two-faced and it can sometimes take "the people" of a nation to straighten this out. I say "the people" because it takes the people that are actualy concerned for the lives on both sides to pull this off. I think also another problem that might be effecting this control in the middle east is the size and lifestyles of certain people allow them to go just about anywhere and setup a commerce. It's going to take both sides to get this religious misunderstanding straightened out, and only those sides know what they endure and need as an individual and as a whole.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you for sharing Luis , though some comments have to be added:

Thanks!

It just give evidence for the contrary

Oh, it is quite true that many (most?) Muslims are peaceful and tolerant in nature and give non-Muslims no trouble whatsoever. I must still stand by my statement that many Muslims are not very tolerant of Atheism, however.

Mohammad peace be upon him was illiterate, read his biography and you'll find out Inshallah. It was his companions who used to write down the verses sent to him.

My mistake. Sorry. I knew that, but I forgot.

I just want to make sure that you know hadiths are the prophet's sallalahu' alayhi wassalam sayings ? And that they were written by his companions to pass it to the next generations?

I'm well aware that the Hadiths are meant to be passed through the generations, for reasons not completely unlike those that apply to the Quran itself.

It was my understanding, however, that not all of them are attributed to Mohammed himself. From what you say, I must have been in the wrong about that.

Actually , the division between shias and sunnis is not upon interpretation of Quran rather its due to historical facts,

It goes back all the way to divergences about who should lead Muslims after Mohammed, doesn't it? I believe the proper name is "Caliphate".

However, it does involve religious matters as well, as you recognize shortly after. Even here in Brazil, which is by no means a predominantly Muslim country, I know of severe stress involving interpretations of the Mutah tradition. Although, truth be told, neither Shias nor Sunnis seem to be very sympathetic to the Mutah these days (for very understandable reasons).

but the main reason is shias contradiciting the principles of Islam, which makes the difference intolerable.

Don't all humans, except probably the Prophets themselves, contradict the principles of Islam to some extent, in deed if not in doctrine?

Because the difference of opinions is a very well know thing in Islam upon secondary rulings, not upon principles. So when principles are contradicted, then the difference is not tolerable anymore, and those who contradict it (their scholars) are considered as out of the fold of Islam, while the laypeople are excused for ignorance.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. It seems to me that in this respect there is much simetry between Shias and Sunnis. That is to say, I believe that your opinion about Shias is somewhat typical for Sunni Muslims, and that Shias say much the same thing about Sunnis. Would you agree?

If you mean by diversity, letting them live in peace, then Allah says:Quran ( 2:256)
[SIZE=+1]256. There is no compulsion in religion.[/SIZE]

Maybe there shouldn't be. It is certainly an advisable goal, if nothing else. In practice that is often a challenge at the very least.

So unity under submission (Islam), then whoever wants to believe something other than Islam then he is free to do so as Allah states in that verse

Still, you surely recognize that ill feelings are a fact of life, and that Muslims don't always extend the same feelings of fraternity and respect for non-Muslims that they do towards other Muslims? I fear that this is a more important matter than many well meaning Muslims want to admit.

Thank you for sharing your view with us

You're very welcome. Sharing views is the cornerstone for peaceful coexistence, so you offered us all a gift by simply creating the thread and responding in it.

 

[kejos]

No, of course it is not a problem on it's own. I just don't think this thread is the place for this discussion.

It's what is known about Islam.

I don't think that's a valid reason to leave one's religion, what about the teachings, what about the fact that over a billion catholic today exists, while most of them do not practice violence.

But the source book of Catholicism doesn't tell them to convert by conquest.

However, i agree that we should denounce whatever violence that was practiced by some Muslims

All Muslims of that time. But will Muslims agree to do that?

but we're not responsible for it, neither is the religion.

That's a matter of opinion, isn't it. Do Western Muslims realise that they technically break the law by teaching the Qur'an?

Islam is still spreading hugely

But it wouldn't be able to do so without that violence. And people who refuse to condemn violence cannot be trusted not to adopt violence if circumstances change.

Yes of course, well there are situations were these things would be okay.

There are over a dozen situations in today's world in which the Qur'an's incitement is responsible for conflict.

 

[Autodidact]

Luis about summed up my knowledge very well. I would just add a little chronology and geography. Also a little about what's going on with modern Islam, which is a confusing and sometimes frightening picture.