Islam as religion of peace

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo:

If Mohammed says Allah told him to do something, he acted in the capacity of a prophet.

What about the caravan raids?

According to the Qur'an, justification relies on a war being in self-defense.

The only question lies in what counts as 'self-defense?'
An old trick used to sanction many aggressive wars, is to accentuate the threat of an enemy grossly disproportionate to their actual threat.

RE the analogy with Jihad = Crusades:

You confirmed my position.

Assume a justified war retaliates in self-defense.
Not all Jihads, as declared by the Muslim authorities have been in self-defense.

Therefore, all declared Jihads cannot be justified wars. These unjustified Jihads are in the same realm as the Crusades.

[Ramo]

What about the caravan raids?

He acted in the capacity of a man, not a prophet (he specifically told his men that when they were discussing the strategy before the battle). I'm referring to the caravan raid near Badr, BTW. I'm not aware of any other prominent caravan raids by Mohammed.

The only question lies in what counts as 'self-defense?'

That's exactly my point. What is self-defense to me may not be self-defense to you. Therefore, what I call a Jihad may not be what you call a Jihad.

Therefore, all declared Jihads cannot be justified wars. These unjustified Jihads are in the same realm as the Crusades.

The Crusades were something else entirely. Well, the first one was anyways, where the populations of Jeruselum and a few other cities were basically exterminated. The other ones were too much military failure to do much damage to the people in the region.

But again, you're missing my point. If I call something a Jihad, doesn't make it a Jihad according to you.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Muslims spread their political control by the sword, but did they force anyone to convert? "

Even if they weren't trying to forcefully convert people(even if they bribed others to do so), it was(and is some would argue) still part of Islamic theology to see infidel lands put under Islamic government, and to make war on those who resist.

[Ramo]

That isn't part of Islamic theology (at least, not according to the Qur'an).

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Ramo
That isn't part of Islamic theology (at least, not according to the Qur'an).

See my earlier post.

[Ramo]

As Boshko pointed out, the quotes had specific contexts with the tribes Mohammed was fighting (again, in self-defense). It wasn't a general call to wage war on infidels.

[Sirotnikov]

muxec - nu chto zhe ti imel v'vidu kogda skazal shto devka tvoya pushistoya? ya do sih por ne znayu

[Daz]

Geee gals and guys. I didnt know Israel was a former CCCP state....

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmmm....I guess that sort of conventions did not exist in the 9th century when the East of europe was Christianized by the sword.

I think I made clear that I don't defend anyone, less I'm the apologet of a religion where people thought it's great to storm and plunder pagan temples and burn incredibly important knowledge... And I've never said that Christianity has not been spread by the sword or at least with the sword in the backhand.
One of the biggest flaws in Christianity is its incopmplete seperation from the OT because on a theological level one had to dig in Exodus to possibly justify violent actions against nonbelievers.

As for the treatment of others in christianity: were Jews allowed to attempt to convert Christians? were Moslems allowed to come and set up a Mosque in some Christian community? Lets look at what happened tot he largest moslem community to come under Christian rule prior to the Enlgihtenment: they were told, convert or leave. Out of how many Muslim states were Jews kicked out of wholesale? We know Jews were expelled from both britian and Spain, at different times. In fact, for 400 years no jew could make their home in England. Yes, the tolerance of Christianity!

Hell, why do you stick to attacking Christianity in a thread about the question of how peaceful Islam is? I join you in this in a thread on the intolerance of Christianity. I'm an agnostic!
Always, when talking about Islam there's the "but the Christians did worse things, nananananana"- argument. But if you wish to know exactly: Muhammad himself told the Jewish tribe of the Quraisha: "Convert, leave or die." OF COURSE, those jews previously broke a treaty...
Or Koran, Sure 9, vers 5 (Word of God): "Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (Polytheists) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (convert) and give Zakât (pay muslim taxes), then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Were non-muslims under muslim rule as free as muslims? NO. Yet the fact that Jewish and Christian communities in Muslim lands lasted so long as they did (compared to most non-Christian communities in Chrisendom) surely shows us that all the "horrific" acts against non-Muslim communities did not lead to their destruction.

As I've said, Christians and Jews were somehow privileged, even the Zoroastrians, although this religion surely didn't almost completely die out only because Islam was so convincing.

That Christian lands today are obviously more tolerant is a result of the humanist, universalist movement of the Enlightenment, and not due to some less bloody bit inherent in these different Monothest traditions.

I agree with you, the humanisation did not flow out of the religion itself. yet I still stand to my opinion that Christianity could more easily adapt to that change since the founder of this religion never decidedly said a word on how the society should work, so the range of interpretations is much bigger. A theological embracement of humanistic values by Islam is much more difficult if not impossible, because it would contradict the very word of God and the prophet, who is only partially to blame because he lived in the 7th century in nasty times and he was a political person. The fact remains that all those nasty little details about the treatment even of the more "privileged" ahl al-kitab are still not questioned the least in the muslim theological argument. The "Dimma", how this system of "coexistance" is called is still seen as a "shining example of tolerance and peaceful coexistance" in history and perfectly applicable today.

[Wernazuma III]

Oh, I forgot Sura 9,29 - the center and heart of the dimma:

"Fight against those who believe not in Allâh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah(head tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

[GePap]

Wernazuma III:

The fact remains that all those nasty little details about the treatment even of the more "privileged" ahl al-kitab are still not questioned the least in the muslim theological argument. The "Dimma", how this system of "coexistance" is called is still seen as a "shining example of tolerance and peaceful coexistance" in history and perfectly applicable today.

As I mentioned in OmarKhattab's thread, what I view as the greatest problem in Islam today is that the theological discussion has say frozen for several centuries now.

My point is that Islam is not inherently a violent religion, as far as its treatment of non-believers is concerned. The thing is Mohammed did concern himslef with the expansion of islam, while christ did not, as he never assumed a p;olitical role, and hence all the politics were left to someone else, and the ancient Jews enver meant their religion to be universal, so what do they care for unbelivers as long as they stay elsewhere?

The reason i state what i do is not form reading the texts, but from how those that did read the text interpreted them and put them into practice. Obiwan keeps pointing out all the passages Mohammed puts in, and yet most Muslim rulers did not interpret them as harshly as he does, given their behavior. I think it is possible to move beyond most of the small details of the books to a more concise spiritual message, but to do so the islamic scholarship has to start again and incorporate the lessons fot eh alst 600 years.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by GePap
My point is that Islam is not inherently a violent religion, as far as its treatment of non-believers is concerned.

Well, sura 9 and 5 (in chronological order) and other parts in the Quran tell me something different, just like many Hadith (words of the prophet). But I agree, there are some other hadith that say something different ("What you do to one of the Dimmi you do to me")
With such commands, muslims were ordered to respect the treaty, yet the treaty itself, well, I've already pointed out.
Furthermore, again, polytheists can't reach even the Dhimma in most variants of Islam safe the Hanafite Sunnites (still a large group), based on the very repulsive statements and almost total war Muhammad prays against them.
His words CAN be interpreted differently, but the violent language used is more than a small indication that the religion here has an inherently violent element.

The thing is Mohammed did concern himslef with the expansion of islam, while christ did not, as he never assumed a p;olitical role, and hence all the politics were left to someone else, and the ancient Jews enver meant their religion to be universal, so what do they care for unbelivers as long as they stay elsewhere?

Right, as long as I don't care for expansion of the faith I generally remain more peaceful towards them. Jews found other ways to be less than peaceful in other ways and Christianity obviously often wasn't able to perform their gospel-preching duty without violence and found enough biblical justification for it, but it's on another leaf. Expansion of Islam from Muhammad on was not something tied to "preaching" or "telling the word of God" but by aggressive political expansion

The reason i state what i do is not form reading the texts, but from how those that did read the text interpreted them and put them into practice.

Ah, now we move closer to the center of our problem. I also often tend to say "there's no religion beside how it's practiced" but that means disregarding the very nature of religion. What I tried was getting to the fundaments of religion itself and that's what we got to do, especially when talking with religious persons. Of course, Islam is different in many parts of the world and throughout history. In my theory, all major religions must be so vague and open to interpretation that they manage to give people an explanation of their world in a great variety of living conditions or they vanish.
But if a muslim claims that his religion is peaceful, he must give me a theological reason how he combines his religion with peace on the grounds of religious texts, not by pointing out "practized tolerance" in history as compared to that in Christian societies. If tolerance was practiced in Islamic societies, it doesn't necessarily mean that Islam was the force behind it. Actually I've found out that it was always religious figures who argued AGAINST the tolerance in the Sultanate of Delhi or in Spain because it clearly contradicted several orders of the prophet - and theologically they had a point. Muhammad forbid taking jews and Christians as friends and called the jews the "worst enemies of the true faith who use to kill prophets, are not trustworthy etc." - period.
It's violent language and there's little theologically doubtful in the preachings of fundamentalists either - safe the killing of women, children and old maybe.

I think it is possible to move beyond most of the small details of the books to a more concise spiritual message, but to do so the islamic scholarship has to start again and incorporate the lessons fot eh alst 600 years.

So do I, and I said that there are a few thinkers who attempt that, yet they're menaced and marginalized and from a theological point they have to be very skillful at evading the many aggressive parts without throwing them in the trash can (what you frankly can't do, otherwise you really pervert the religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wernazuma:

why do you stick to attacking Christianity in a thread about the question of how peaceful Islam is?

Bravo

My point is that Islam is not inherently a violent religion, as far as its treatment of non-believers is concerned.

I'm not so sure about this seperation. I do believe that Islam teaches that it is okay to forcibly convert unbelievers to Islam. Go to an Islamic country and find a convert from Islam to Christianity, these people will be very much persecuted by their former family. Religious tolerance is hard to come by.

WRT Wernazuma's point on the origins of religious freedoms within the west, you may be surprised that the first country to have any laws allowing for Religious freedoms was Prussia under Frederick the Great, a suspected atheist.

[JCG]

I guess what makes Islam "less" of a religion of peace is the very questionable/contradictory content in some of the Hadith/Sunna, which were written much later than the Quran, after their Prophet was dead, AFAIK...

For example, on another forum, some Muslims were using tons of quotes from those to "justify" terrorism/suicide bombing/killing of innocents and a lot of equally violent/unpeaceful stuff...

[Ramo]

Go to an Islamic country and find a convert from Islam to Christianity, these people will be very much persecuted by their former family. Religious tolerance is hard to come by.

I'm an atheist, and most of my overwhelmingly Islamic family doesn't hold anything against me (or my sister who's also an atheist, for that matter).

I know many, many very tolerant Moslems. I really don't know where y'all are coming up with this... There's absolutely nothing inherently violent about Moslems. At least, no more so than there's anything inherently violent about Christians.

WRT Wernazuma's point on the origins of religious freedoms within the west, you may be surprised that the first country to have any laws allowing for Religious freedoms was Prussia under Frederick the Great, a suspected atheist.

Freddy was a fan of Voltaire.

The thing is Mohammed did concern himslef with the expansion of islam, while christ did not, as he never assumed a p;olitical role, and hence all the politics were left to someone else, and the ancient Jews enver meant their religion to be universal, so what do they care for unbelivers as long as they stay elsewhere?

But Mohammed didn't assume a political role in a religious capacity. He was Caliph as a man, not a prophet. Political expansion doesn't imply forcing people to convert by the sword. Hell, conversion was even discouraged later on to maximize tax collection.

Well, sura 9 and 5 (in chronological order) and other parts in the Quran tell me something different, [...]

I think you're missing that there are lots of contextual issues with what you're writing. In the Qur'an, for the most part, the parts about killing people, etc. are tied to specific conflicts and specific circumstances.