The Truth About Islam

[mantis]

Than how do these Islamic schools in the mid-east justify the violent approach they teach? There are probably just as many contradictory readings in the Quran as there are in the Bible.

unfortunately people collpase in front of the media's pressure on them so they deny the existence of violence in Islam
in fact, the Qura'an itself challenges the world to find a single contradiction in it. it is the people who tend to be ashamed of what they believe and deny some facts.
Violence does exist in this religion, just as much as it does exist in any other religoin including christianity and buddhism. the difference comes in "where violence is justified"
these places are something like self-defense, if using violence returns a greater benefit to the majority of people than the disadvantage of using violence.
There is a saying by the 1st muslim khalif, he said: "the strong amongst you is weak until I take what he owes people from him, and the weak amongst you is strong until i return his rights" implicitly declaring one of the instances violence is used.

 

[mantis]

Doesn't the Koran also call for Jihad? If so, upon who are the followers of Mohammed to Jihad? Maybe this is wrong, but I read that Islam started as a peaceful religion and that the beginning of the Koran is filled with the ideals of peace, then as Islam began to be spread by the sword, the later Koran became more violent.

I wonder if Islam has multiple versions of the Koran just as christianity has multiple versions of the bible?

Yes jihad is mentioned and has the following ruling:
1. mandatory if any of the muslim land is occupied, or any muslim person is imprisoned
2. Mandatory on at least 1 person (meaning if at least one person does it it will suffice) and that includes teaching non-muslims about islam, or spreading islam EVEN if using the sword is only way to do so
Islam does not deny using the sword, but most of the time it was spread by non-muslims watching the muslim life and embracing it (example: how yemeni merchants spread islam to africa, and south east asia. people were impressed by the honesty of those merchants)
and No, there is ONLY one version of the Quran, memorized by heart by tens of millions of people (example at least 20% of pakistan knows the Quran by heart)
if you get an american muslim, an african, an asian, arab, and a turkish: they will all recite the same words in the same way with the same tone!
btw, the original collected copy of the Quran is in a museum in Turkey.

 

[mantis]

You dont see a lot of people using Christianity as a tool to whip up soldiers into a killing frenzy. Islam seems to have become a handy religon to do just that. Why and How I cant figure.

this post is at least a year old
if you are still around and wanna elaborate i would be more than happy to answer

 

[mantis]

I always heard, for what hearsay is worth, that Shi'ites are the more mystical and ritualistic.

the majority of Siites believe in the existence of 12 leaders (imams)
who represent 'reformers' or leaders who added something to their faith.
the last one of them is believed to disapper in a cave and that he will come back later towards the end of this life.
There are a lot of sects within Shiism and most of them conflict with the basics of the islamic faith and the core creed

 

[mantis]

ummmm...I mean "today". Dont see a lot of Catholics on the news calling for Crusade!! But somehow "Jihad" seems to have to be accepted as tolerance of anothers religon. If priests were actively calling for abortion clinic bombings all hell would break loose "today".

i heard bush saying it twice, and i see his armies invading muslim countries like there's no tomorrow!
i mean come on, he says he talks to God!

 

[mantis]

That is very interesting...I figured that since there were corrupted versions of the Bible that stated that Jesus hated people who weren't white, that there must be something similiar occuring in the religion of Islam.

the way it was preserved is interesting
basically by keeping it memorized by a huge number of people!
each one of those persons who has it memorized does have a "lineage" meaning you can trace him back to the prophet! just like in martial arts

 

[mantis]

When I was waiting tables in Dallas, I had several friends who were of the islamic faith. They knew I was Christian but that didn't stop them from being good friends with me. And that is just what they were; good, honest, decent and gentle friends. One of them was a devout follower and he "repented" at the mosque every chance he got for the things that his religion forbade against while he was working waiting tables (handling of pork and other things).
From my interaction with these (and other) true muslims I've no beef with the faith or with the individual people.
There are those who twist the words of their prophet to suit their means. Since they are masters of propaganda (think Gobbels, Himmler, Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Mao) they will find those desiring to express their dissatisfaction with how things are dealt with others in a violent and inappropriate manner, that is often contrary to their proposed beliefs.
Thanks Tulisan for the posting of exerpts of the Quran...
I sincerely doubt that if we were to point out these descrepancies between their so called belief in martyrdom and what it actually says in their Quran that they would even listen. A mind convinced against it's will, is of the same opinion still. These young guys (and women) wanted to believe something and the crafty and wily will find ways to take advantage of it.
:asian:

islam classifies non-muslims into 2 categories:
1. enemies: those who draw their swords to fight islam or muslims: like the crusaders
2. friends: those who do not strive to kick muslims out of their homes, and do not wish to change their religions. and you happen to be from the second category, that's why they have to be friendly with you!
not only that, but if you are a jew, or a christian living in their countries you do enjoy special treatment because the muslim prophet Muhammad told the people that he will be asked by God about what muslims do to those, and therefore muslims should be very careful dealing with those. btw jews and christians are called "people of the book" (meaning those who recieved a book from God: Torah, and the Bible)

 

[mantis]

Thank you for making this point. This was my understanding as well.

Also, it is a tenet in the Christian belief system that 'Faith Comes Through Hearing, and Hearing the Word of God' ... I was taught this means the teachings in the bible must be read aloud (as opposed to read silently, to yourself) to build faith and belief in the teachings. I also understand that practitioners of Islam believe this facet of religious learning to a greater degree than their Christian cousins. Hearing the Quran read aloud, in its original Arabic is crucial to proper practice of the faith.

Mike

the Qura'an is only recited out loud in the prayers that happen at night (the one dawn, sunset, and night prayers) and that's because the chances that people are not working and can attend the mass prayer is much more than during the day!
the Qura'an is not recited loudly in the rest of the 5 daily prayers.
in fact, Islam teaches muslims that low-voiced recitation promotes humbleness and concentration

 

[Old Tiger]

*deleted

 

[Ray]

I wonder if Islam has multiple versions of the Koran just as christianity has multiple versions of the bible?

As I understand it, sometime after the "passing" of Muhammad there were some multiple versions but the caliphate took steps to ensure spurious versions were destroyed. I understand that there is only one in Arabic, that it is the correct rendering and that all translations into other languages are "interpretations."

 

[sgtmac_46]

islam classifies non-muslims into 2 categories:
1. enemies: those who draw their swords to fight islam or muslims: like the crusaders
2. friends: those who do not strive to kick muslims out of their homes, and do not wish to change their religions. and you happen to be from the second category, that's why they have to be friendly with you!
not only that, but if you are a jew, or a christian living in their countries you do enjoy special treatment because the muslim prophet Muhammad told the people that he will be asked by God about what muslims do to those, and therefore muslims should be very careful dealing with those. btw jews and christians are called "people of the book" (meaning those who recieved a book from God: Torah, and the Bible)

What you are referring to is the two abodes. In Islam the world has only two abodes, the abode of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the abode of war (dar al-harb). Dar al-harb directly translates "a country belonging to the infidels which has not been subdued by Islam."
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Hughes/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Harb
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

According to some more modern Islamic scholars, the seperation point is whether or not Muslims can practice islam freely in the country they live.

The classical interpretation, and the one taken by "extremists" is that not everyone must be islamic, as evidenced by the fact that many non-islamics live in islamic nations...BUT everyone must live under Islamic law.

Now, we should make that clear. The Islamic world divides up the abode of War in to two groups, Children of the Book and Pagans.

For those who are non-Islamic, but are considered "Children of the Book" (i.e. Jews, Christians, Zoroastians, and Mendeans) it is sufficient to merely submit to an Islamic ruler, then they are free to exercise their beliefs. With pagans, they are also allowed to accept Islamic rule, but they are more restricted in their practices and freedoms. Some more extreme Islamic beliefs say that anyone considered pagan must either convert, or killed.

Again, if you're a Child of the Book, you can practice your religion freely by merely accepting Islamic rule.

If you don't live under Islamic law, then you are said to live in the abode of war. Therefore, it the is the duty of every Muslim to bring you under islamic law by the word or sword.

So it is a misunderstanding that the Radical Islamic fundamentalists want to kill all non-muslims or make them convert. They merely desire to bring everyone under Islamic rule.

 

[Kane]

Islam (like Christianity) has many contradictions. There are peaceful quotes that do say killing is wrong, while there are other verses that support the Jihad and say that you must cut the throat of the infidel.

I think in general religious fundie conservatives and rad politically correct liberals have the wrong impression about Islam. Religious conservatives believe that Islam is a religion of death and destruction that is far more barbaric than Christianity, when in fact Christianity and Islam have about the same violence in it (maybe Islam a little bit more). Politically correct liberals believe Islam is a religion of peace, similar to something like Buddhism when in fact the religion is far more, if not more violent the Christianity!

Islam though has a lot of strange laws, similar but still even stranger than some Christian practices. Musical religions are banned and according to Islamic law (Shariah, Hadith, Sunnah, Quran) musical instruments are items used by the Satan. Eating with your left hand is also considered evil and satanic. Dogs are considered unclean, and are discourages as animals you shouldn't keep. Men and women are also not permited to talk to each other (opposite sex). Like in Judaism pork is banned.

By the way check out these threads;

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6766

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8939

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6640&highlight=Eating+Left+Hand

 

[sgtmac_46]

Islam (like Christianity) has many contradictions. There are peaceful quotes that do say killing is wrong, while there are other verses that support the Jihad and say that you must cut the throat of the infidel.

I think in general religious fundie conservatives and rad politically correct liberals have the wrong impression about Islam. Religious conservatives believe that Islam is a religion of death and destruction that is far more barbaric than Christianity, when in fact Christianity and Islam have about the same violence in it (maybe Islam a little bit more). Politically correct liberals believe Islam is a religion of peace, similar to something like Buddhism when in fact the religion is far more, if not more violent the Christianity!

Let me preface this by saying that i'm agnostic, so I don't have a theological horse in this race. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

Islam explicitly states it's the duty of Muslims to engage in Jihad against the abode of War, in order to bring everyone under Islamic law, and bring "peace" to the world. That's the only interpretation possible if you take every verse of Islamic teachings literally. Fortunately, most muslims are a little more selective, many aren't.

When we talk about violence in Christianity, we are really being a bit disingenuous because we are lumping things in to Christianty that aren't explicitly in Christianity.

The only violence referenced as doctrine in the bible, is in the old testament, which Christ expressly stated was no longer the law in the same sense it was formerly interpreted.

The second lumping we are doing is lumping in to christianity what the Popes did to gain and maintain power. The reason they were able to usurp christianity, is that there weren't very many bibles, all of them were in latin and only the church was allowed to interpret doctrine anyway, so the Laity had to take the word of the Popes for what was doctrine.

Now, we all have access to the New Testament. Taking the literal word of Christianity and the literal word of Islam, I defy anyone to find one single command of Christ that would be intereted by any reasonable person as inciting anyone to violence.

Christ stated specifically: "John 13:34-A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

It seems very clear what Christ's stance on violence was. What's furthermore, christianity in the first years was one of pacifism and forgiveness in the face of violence. It was by peaceful martyrdom and non-violence that christianity slowly took over the Roman empire. What ultimately brought violence in to the church was the "Romanification" of the church.

In contrast, from the very beginning Islam was violently expansionist. Mohammad himself was a warlord, who spread Islam as much by the sword as the word. Many pagans died under the sword of Mohammad and his followers.

Again, I say this not to defend Christianity, but to point out what should be obvious with any honest examination of the differences. I just have to wonder why it's considered "enlightened" to ignore painful truths.

Ultimately I agree with the idea that dogmatic religious belief of any sort is often a source of human misery. But the attempt to paint Christianity as just as violent as Islam at it's core is a bit disingenuous and ignores certain clear realities.

When we say Islam is a religion of peace, we are correct from a certain point of view...Islam is tolerant and peaceful under ideal conditions. The problem is the idea that "Peace" is only for the abode of Islam, not the abode of War.

I know it's heresy in the modern day to point out the obvious, but the evidence is overwhelming. The problem is that we have been indoctrinated in to believing that any negative assertion about another religion automatically makes us "intolerant" and "bigoted" no matter how obvious that conclusion is based on the evidence. We have a cultural blind spot that could be fatal.

That isn't to say that millions of Muslims aren't peace loving people. Many have turned a literal interpretation of Islam in to a very uplifting spiritual message. It is to say that literal interpretation of Islamic teachings by large numbers of people can lead to violence and war.

 

[Kane]

Let me preface this by saying that i'm agnostic, so I don't have a theological horse in this race. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

Islam explicitly states it's the duty of Muslims to engage in Jihad against the abode of War, in order to bring everyone under Islamic law, and bring "peace" to the world. That's the only interpretation possible if you take every verse of Islamic teachings literally. Fortunately, most muslims are a little more selective, many aren't.

When we talk about violence in Christianity, we are really being a bit disingenuous because we are lumping things in to Christianty that aren't explicitly in Christianity.

The only violence referenced as doctrine in the bible, is in the old testament, which Christ expressly stated was no longer the law in the same sense it was formerly interpreted.

The second lumping we are doing is lumping in to christianity what the Popes did to gain and maintain power. The reason they were able to usurp christianity, is that there weren't very many bibles, all of them were in latin and only the church was allowed to interpret doctrine anyway, so the Laity had to take the word of the Popes for what was doctrine.

Now, we all have access to the New Testament. Taking the literal word of Christianity and the literal word of Islam, I defy anyone to find one single command of Christ that would be intereted by any reasonable person as inciting anyone to violence.

Christ stated specifically: "John 13:34-A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

It seems very clear what Christ's stance on violence was. What's furthermore, christianity in the first years was one of pacifism and forgiveness in the face of violence. It was by peaceful martyrdom and non-violence that christianity slowly took over the Roman empire. What ultimately brought violence in to the church was the "Romanification" of the church.

In contrast, from the very beginning Islam was violently expansionist. Mohammad himself was a warlord, who spread Islam as much by the sword as the word. Many pagans died under the sword of Mohammad and his followers.

Again, I say this not to defend Christianity, but to point out what should be obvious with any honest examination of the differences. I just have to wonder why it's considered "enlightened" to ignore painful truths.

Ultimately I agree with the idea that dogmatic religious belief of any sort is often a source of human misery. But the attempt to paint Christianity as just as violent as Islam at it's core is a bit disingenuous and ignores certain clear realities.

When we say Islam is a religion of peace, we are correct from a certain point of view...Islam is tolerant and peaceful under ideal conditions. The problem is the idea that "Peace" is only for the abode of Islam, not the abode of War.

I know it's heresy in the modern day to point out the obvious, but the evidence is overwhelming. The problem is that we have been indoctrinated in to believing that any negative assertion about another religion automatically makes us "intolerant" and "bigoted" no matter how obvious that conclusion is based on the evidence. We have a cultural blind spot that could be fatal.

That isn't to say that millions of Muslims aren't peace loving people. Many have turned a literal interpretation of Islam in to a very uplifting spiritual message. It is to say that literal interpretation of Islamic teachings by large numbers of people can lead to violence and war.

Yes you are correct to a certian extent, and Islam definatley has more violence in its scriptures than Christianity. However if you do talk to many fundie Christians they will tell you, for example the first 5 books still apply to modern times. Of course I forgot to ask why doesn't he kill adulterers and homosexuals, because the the first five books clearly state this must be done.

Although I have a lot of respect of Jesus, he did not say that he came to abolish to Jewish law, rather to fullfill it. If it said otherwise, Christianity wouldn't have the track record it has. A lot of genocide has been commited under the name of the Christian God, from the crusades to the Native Americans. Columbus himself viewed Native Americans as "heathens" because they did not follow the Holy Trinity. There are also verses in the Bible that, that although do not encourage violence, do teach intollerance of people who follow other religions.

In the end even if Islam is more violent than Christianity, both have their verses of intollerance and even violence and it is up to the adherents not to follow these verses.

 

[Kane]

Christianity itself is a very contradicting religion. Jesus did teach nonviolence, but the Old Testament clearly does not. It makes people wonder why on Earth do people still follow the Old Testament.

The Puritans believed in witches because of a verse in Exodus, and looked where that lead!

Christianity at its core is Jesus, which makes it non violent at the core but many thing surrounding the core are far more violent, as in the first 5 books.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes you are correct to a certian extent, and Islam definatley has more violence in its scriptures than Christianity. However if you do talk to many fundie Christians they will tell you, for example the first 5 books still apply to modern times. Of course I forgot to ask why doesn't he kill adulterers and homosexuals, because the the first five books clearly state this must be done.

Although I have a lot of respect of Jesus, he did not say that he came to abolish to Jewish law, rather to fullfill it. If it said otherwise, Christianity wouldn't have the track record it has. A lot of genocide has been commited under the name of the Christian God, from the crusades to the Native Americans. Columbus himself viewed Native Americans as "heathens" because they did not follow the Holy Trinity. There are also verses in the Bible that, although do not encourage violence, they do teach intollerance of people who follow other religions.

In the end even if Islam is more violent than Christianity, both have their verses of intollerance and even violence and it is up to the adherents not to follow these verses.

What you've done is seperate bizarre interpretations of doctrine based on the individual desires of certain adherents from the actual words. That's necessary in order to make Christianity a "violent religion".

It is not necessary, however, to make that case about Islam, as all that is needed is to read the actual words IN context. It is very clear on certain points about the duties of it's adherents to engage in "Jihad" against the abode of War. That's not a sectarian interpretation, but a literal interpretation.

That's my point. Christianity taken literally, as it's reported founder had spoken and declared, is a religion of peace. Christ never raised a sword or an army, nor did he condemn those who tacked him up on a cross. In fact, he cautioned his followers not to engage in violence in his defense. Hardly a religion easily translated in to violence. It took a thousand years to be perverted to that extent.

It takes going outside of the literal word of Christianity to try and make the case for the inherent violent nature of the religion, which is a disingenuous argument.

As for genocide in the new world, it wasn't a result of the worship of god, it was the worship of GOLD.

I sense, in essence however, that we agree on the main point...That dogmatic religious belief is anachronistic in the modern world and leads to more problems than it solves. Which is why Islam has created such a problem. While most people in the US and the rest of the western world consider themselves "Christians", most of them believe "Just in case". Only a small element are actually what would be considered devout to the point of being radicals.

The arab world, however, with it's limited educational opportunities, is ripe for the expansion of certain kinds of radical, extremist Islamic ideologies that breed terrorism and war.

In the increaslingly secular west, organized religion is beginning to decline as a political force. In the Islamic world, it is rising as a source of political ideology. That's the big difference between the two. The only answer is secularization.

http://www.secularislam.org/

 

[Kane]

Yes you are right Jesus was a non-violent man, many other people in the Bible however were not. If we were to follow the Bible literally as a theocracy, and as the supreme law of the land, society would be very similar to how Iran is right now. In fact the Puritan government of the 1600s is exactly how Iran is today. There are many verses of war in Bible (ie Deau. 20) and many of verses of intollerance that have lead to many of the acts of genocide in the past.

Even some of the teachings of Paul are questionable in many ways, especially in relation to Jesus and non-violence.

I'm not saying Christianity is all about violence, but you can't say if you follow the Bible literally it is non-violent. If this was the case Christianity would had a less bloody past.

Look at Hindu or Buddhist history compared to Muslim and Christian history. Far less war and conflict and it is based on the fact that Hindus and Buddhists are never suggest to be violent in any form.

 

[Kane]

Columbus although wanted gold more than anything did justify his treatment on the Native Americans on the fact that they were heathens who did not follow the holy trinity. The fact that he used religion to justify anything says a lot, you will not see a hindu or buddhist do the same (almost never).

I do believe that the Middle East should become secular, but we should not necessarily force it upon them. That is to say we shouldn't go to war in Iran because of the reason. Hopefully the new democratic Iraq will shine light into the Middle Eastern world and end theocracies for good.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes you are right Jesus was a non-violent man, many other people in the Bible however were not. If we were to follow the Bible literally as a theocracy, and as the supreme law of the land, society would be very similar to how Iran is right now. In fact the Puritan government of the 1600s is exactly how Iran is today. There are many verses of war in Bible (ie Deau. 20) and many of verses of intollerance that have lead to many of the acts of genocide in the past.

Again, you have to refer to the old testament to declare christianity violent. Yet, Christ himself declared himself the fulfillment of the law. What he meant by that, was that all the sins of the old testament that seperated man from god, were paid for by him. In return, it was the duty of christians to LIVE as HE lived. Period. It seems very clear that living as christ does not include violence of any sort toward another.

Even some of the teachings of Paul are questionable in many ways, especially in relation to Jesus and non-violence.

I'm not saying Christianity is all about violence, but you can't say if you follow the Bible literally it is non-violent. If this was the case Christianity would had a less bloody past.

If you follow the teachings of Christ literally, the only conclusion is non-violence. The bloody history of Christianity has less to do with christ, and far more to do with the Romanification of Christianity and the subsequent European intrigues of the next 2000 years. Christianity became a tool of the popes to insure and gain power. Many acts of the catholic church had absolutely nothing to do with the bible. You won't find anything in the bible on indulgences, for example, a major sticking point that helped lead to the Protestant Reformation.

Look at Hindu or Buddhist history compared to Muslim and Christian history. Far less war and conflict and it is based on the fact that Hindus and Buddhists are never suggest to be violent in any form.

It has been suggested that the teachings of christ were inspired by the diffusion of Buddhist teachings in to the middle east. Whether that is true or not, it is clear that Christ himself was a pacifist in the sense that he did not engage in violence against others, and he instructed those that followed him to act in the same manner. I'm not sure how it can get any clearer.

Any actions taken by christians to the contrary, is done so under their own authority, not under the authority of the literal instructions of Christ.

Columbus although wanted gold more than anything did justify his treatment on the Native Americans on the fact that they were heathens who did not follow the holy trinity. The fact that he used religion to justify anything says a lot, you will not see a hindu or buddhist do the same (almost never).

For the record, however, buddhist and hindu terrorist organizations do exist. There are large numbers of violent acts committed in the Kashmir region, among other places. Any religion can serve the foundation of a fanatical belief system. The problem comes, however, when a religion is already pre-designed to inspire fanatical violence.

The difference between buddhism and christianity is this....Buddhism is as much a philosophy as a literal religion. Many versions of Buddhism have eliminated the religion entirely. Zen Buddhism even has a saying "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha" meaning that it is entirely internal and there is no external religious source. Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.

I do believe that the Middle East should become secular, but we should not necessarily force it upon them. That is to say we shouldn't go to war in Iran because of the reason. Hopefully the new democratic Iraq will shine light into the Middle Eastern world and end theocracies for good.

I sincerely hope that happens as well.

 

[mantis]

Islam (like Christianity) has many contradictions. There are peaceful quotes that do say killing is wrong, while there are other verses that support the Jihad and say that you must cut the throat of the infidel.

what is 'jihad' anyway?
everybody makes it sounds like it's plain killing.