What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

[The Kilted Heathen]

It was said: "There are religions of peace....jainisim, buddhism, Amish"

Violence in Jainism
Buddhism and violence
As for the Amish, they are a sect of Christianity. As such, they believe in the bible, which is rife with violence both past and present. Their beliefs are far from peaceful.

 

[J2hapydna]

But then Muhammad took revenge.

The war between Mecca and Muslims only really started when Muhammad raided merchant caravans from 623 to 624, which accumulated with the death of the caravan guards. When Meccans send a force out with the next caravan train, that ended in battle of Badr in 624.

When Muhammad left Mecca in 622 with family and followers, they were not at war yet. War will only start if both sides armed. Muhammad and Muslims were armed when they raided those caravans.

So essentially Muhammad started the war by provoking the Meccans with these raids.

Like or not sovietchild, when send people to raid and rob as act of revenge, then revenge is not "peaceful" act.

And that's the only time he started a war.

Did you know that when Muhammad left Mecca, the first place he sought refuge for himself and his people was at Ta'if in 622. They refused to let them in their town.

Eight years later after Mecca surrendered to Muhammad and his large army in 630, the first place he went to when he went on campaign to invade and convert the rest of Arabia was Ta'if, which he lay siege to.

The attack on the town was revenge for not accepting them as refugees. Tell me who started the war between Muslims and the town of Ta'if?

Muhammad started this battle. And when Ta'if did eventually surrender, they ask for a condition to be keep their pagan religion. Muhammad rejected the condition, so the people of Ta'if were forced to convert.

So the whole notion that Islam don't compel people to convert, is nothing more than a myth.

And the idea that Muslims don't start wars, are also a myth. Attacking caravans and starting a siege in revenge, showed that Islam is not a religion of peace.

I'm not an Orthodox so I don't know all the details, but do you mean the war didn't start when the Meccans plotted to murder MP in Mecca and sent men from all the tribes to kill him as he slept but found Ali had taken his place in bed? Or when Abu Suffiyan went to hunt him down and kill him after discovering he had escaped? According to a movie I saw that and the fact that Sumiya was tortured and killed as well as the Muslims were banished from the city were also factors for starting of hostilities. Perhaps that was just poetic license in a movie.

Also can you tell me what was the punishment that the ruler of Mecca Abu Suffiyan received for repeatedly trying to murder MP so many times and responsible for murdering Hamza? Also for not accepting Islam until his city fell to the Muslims when he was captured by MP? What exactly is the punishment for waging such a war on the prophet in such a relentless and cruel way according to Islam?

Thank you

 

[Shad]

I didn't say the U.K. did. Perhaps you should read what I said again

You mentioned Muslims in the UK not paying their taxes. I pointed out the UK does not tax people based on their religion. A tax based on people's religion is discrimination. Jiyza is a tax on non-Muslims after the area was conquered by Muslims, ergo a was a conquest tax. While the taxes in the UK apply to citizens not a conquered people. Besides those Muslims that were not converts and were born in the UK are immigrants that accepedt the government can tax them as part of becoming a citizen. Any citizen can leave the UK if they have an issues with taxes.

Reading comprehension son.... You mentioned the UK in your own post....

 

[Shad]

Perhaps you should raise these issues in front of an Orthodox Muslim who believes those versions of events represent Islam

You are the one posting about these subjects not some Orthodox Muslim that never made a post I replied to..... You are making claims. I am challenging those claims as assertions.

Nice dodge. All you have shown is you have no response to my points. This does not make an argument. Try again son.

 

[J2hapydna]

You mentioned Muslims in the UK not paying their taxes. I pointed out the UK does not tax people based on their religion. A tax based on people's religion is discrimination. Jiyza is a tax on non-Muslims after the area was conquered by Muslims, ergo a was a conquest tax. While the taxes in the UK apply to citizens not a conquered people. Besides those Muslims that were not converts and were born in the UK are immigrants that accepedt the government can tax them as part of becoming a citizen. Any citizen can leave the UK if they have an issues with taxes.

Reading comprehension son.... You mentioned the UK in your own post....

Like I said I didn't say U.K. did.

 

[J2hapydna]

You are the one posting about these subjects not some Orthodox Muslim that never made a post I replied to..... You are making claims. I am challenging those claims as assertions.

Nice dodge. All you have shown is you have no response to my points. This does not make an argument. Try again son.

Challenge away

 

[Shad]

Like I said I didn't say U.K. did.

My point was your comparison was flawed as you treated two different systems of taxes as the same.

 

[Shad]

Challenge away

Then respond to my points in the post you dodged.

 

[J2hapydna]

Shad, Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[J2hapydna]

My point was your comparison was flawed as you treated two different systems of taxes as the same.

Which two Systems do you think I was comparing?

 

[sayak83]

Orthodox Judaism actually has no opinion on the authenticity of the Quran as a scripture. Otherwise, do you really think an Orthodox Jewish RABBI in Jerusalem could openly hold such a view if it were forbidden by his congregation? Please investigate before making such statements

Secondly, the Baha'i do consider the Quran to be the word of Allah, their creator. Their Quran is the same as the Orthodox Quran.

So your definition of Muslim has been met by both groups.

As far as how the Orthodox translators disagree with Baha'i translators that is a separate matter. Different sects within religions disagree on interpretations all the time. If staying faithful to how the Orthodoxy interprets the text was an issue for you then you should have revised your definition and included this point. This is why I gave you an opportunity to reconsider your extremely liberal definition.

I have already noted that orthodox Judaism itself cannot be consider a religion of peace. Secondly since you accept the basic fact that major schools of orthodox Islam interpret Quran in a way that cannot be harmonized with the claim that their Islam is a religion of peace, I see no point in continuing. Islam is a word and it refers to all sects within it who identify as such. If a significant number (I would claim a majority in this case) hold to interpretations that are not commensurate with peaceful religion expectations, then the sentence "islam is a religion of peace" is falsified even if "Ahmadiyya Islam is a religion of peace" or "Sufi Islam is a religion of peace" remains true. Its like "Mammals are creatures of the air" remain false even if "bats are creature of the air" remain true. Basic semantics of how classifications work.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

 

[gnostic]

I'm not an Orthodox so I don't know all the details, but do you mean the war didn't start when the Meccans plotted to murder MP in Mecca and sent men from all the tribes to kill him as he slept but found Ali had taken his place in bed? Or when Abu Suffiyan went to hunt him down and kill him after discovering he had escaped?

There was no war when Muhammad was living in Mecca.

Was Muhammad mocked? Yes.

Was Muhammad persecuted? Yes.

Was there an assassination attempt on Muhammad? According to the Muslim's version, then yes. There are no records of such attempts being made from the other side, so it cannot be confirmed. But I would say it is possible.

Did Muhammad and his followers leave Mecca, because he feared for his life? Again, that is a possible "yes", but it cannot be confirmed.

None of these, even the alleged assassination attempt amounts to a war.

An assassination can start off a war, but by itself, an assassination is not a war.

You clearly don't understand what is a war.

War can only begin, when one side declare war, or when one surprise the other by attacking first. Muhammad attacked first.

The real war didn't begin, until they have already moved to Medina, WHEN Muhammad began the armed conflict, via the raids on merchant caravans, going in and out of Mecca, between 623-624. Neither declared war, until Mecca was provoked by these raids (12 of them according to Muslim sources) and when the first real clash happened at the Battle of Badr in 624.

Do you know what started the war in World War II?

No one declare war. The war started the moment German quickly invaded Poland, in a blitz attack. The Poles were completely taken by surprise. The whole government just simply collapsed.

Like the Nazi Germans, Muhammad started the war by attacking first, those raids were pretext of starting the war.

 

[Kirran]

Are the liberals in the U.K. "Conservatives"?

I am asking because in Australia, they are conservatives.

We don't really use the term here in common parlance. But when I say liberal democracy, that refers to the politico-economic system, which would include nearly every political party in the UK and Australia, progressive and conservative alike.

 

[J2hapydna]

....

Was Muhammad mocked? Yes.

Was Muhammad persecuted? Yes.

Was there an assassination attempt on Muhammad? According to the Muslim's version, then yes. There are no records of such attempts being made from the other side, so it cannot be confirmed. But I would say it is possible.

Did Muhammad and his followers leave Mecca, because he feared for his life? Again, that is a possible "yes", but it cannot be confirmed.

None of these, even the alleged assassination attempt amounts to a war.

An assassination can start off a war, but by itself, an assassination is not a war.

You clearly don't understand what is a war.

Well there really is no other version, but the "Muslim version" is there? So none of this is really reliable, I agree. However, are you going to cherry pick and call some parts the Muslim version because it disagrees with your thesis? I think that would be considered unethical by unbiased historians.

Secondly, if someone really did unite men from several different tribes to murder me and tried to hunt me down after I escaped, that would be war, I would certainly consider that an act of war

Finally, I haven't heard your account about about how the pagan leader of Mecca, Abu Suffiyan was punished according to Islamic law for orchestrating these attacks after he was caught when his city was captured. Did they cut off his hands and feet and crucify him? Did they rape his wife and murder his grown sons who participated in these wars? What happened to them can you tell us?

Thanks

 

[Shad]

Which two Systems do you think I was comparing?

'

Jiyza to a modern tax system.

 

[Shad]

Shad, Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about.

I know you don't as you dodged as you never bothered to read my points. Try reading it again. If need be ask questions about specifics.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would say, one has to look at the context.

For example suppose the Muslims in U.K. decided they do not need to pay taxes to the crown and took up arms against the government. Then would the U.K. government be justified in saying fight the Muslims until they submit and pay their fair share of taxes or change their religion and pay their fair share of taxes? I would say yes, the government would be justified.

So I would suggest that you examine the Quran more thoroughly to see if these verses required paying of Jizya from all Christians for all time or some in the age of MP who didn't want to pay any taxes and wanted to continue fighting the Muslims.

I would say so the same with verses that appear to suggest Muslims can't be friends with Jews and Christians and killing those who don't accept Islam etc

I would suggest examine history and look to see if there are other verses that suggest friendship was forbidden in a particular time when peace was offered, but rejected by Jews and Christians and who had picked up arms against Muslims. Then, were friendships temporarily banned with a suggestion that these are temporary measures that maybe rescinded after peace was established.

Personally, after reading history of the period, I'm comfortable in believing that Jizya, restrictions on friendships and war against non Muslims were all temporary measures against those who had started wars against Muslims and not blanket rules that applied to all non Muslims for all time

Good luck

The UK government would be justified in demanding that Muslims must change their religion? They would be justified for fighting against UK citizens? This fight would be between an army and citizens to convert and subdue non-taxpayers? Your apologetic is one good reason I have for repudiating Islam.

I don't need to examine the Qu'ran more thoroughly than I have. It's oral author personally ordered thousands of pacifist Jews executed for not submitting, their wives and children enslaved. These Jews did not oppose Islam or war against Muhammed, they merely did not accept him as God's prophet.

The Qu'ran says, "Take not for friends and helpers the infidels et al" yet thousands of Muslim students come to the US and UK to study and learn and be helped by infidel college professors. Strange . . .

I'm glad you're comfortable with your understanding that the jizya was a temporary extortion tax. Perhaps you would write the leaders of the countries where Jews and Christians continue to pay protection tax in 99% Muslim countries, after almost 1,400 years of oppression. I know the apologetic that says the jizya was for protection against warring infidel tribes, isn't it time you spoke against it in Muslim nations?

 

[Shad]

Secondly, if someone really did unite men from several different tribes to murder me and tried to hunt me down after I escaped, that would be war, I would certainly consider that an act of war

You are not a nation. Now if you want to claim status as a political leader of the group you have to accept prior actions as a political leader. Which include smear tactics such as those used against the Meccan

 

[J2hapydna]

I have already noted that orthodox Judaism itself cannot be consider a religion of peace. Secondly since you accept the basic fact that major schools of orthodox Islam interpret Quran in a way that cannot be harmonized with the claim that their Islam is a religion of peace, I see no point in continuing. Islam is a word and it refers to all sects within it who identify as such. If a significant number (I would claim a majority in this case) hold to interpretations that are not commensurate with peaceful religion expectations, then the sentence "islam is a religion of peace" is falsified even if "Ahmadiyya Islam is a religion of peace" or "Sufi Islam is a religion of peace" remains true. Its like "Mammals are creatures of the air" remain false even if "bats are creature of the air" remain true. Basic semantics of how classifications work.

I agree. Cheers