Teachings of the Quran

[DevilsAdvocate]

I've met lots of people online who have claimed that the Muslim religion is one of violence and domination. That Muhammed was a brutal warlord, and a pedophile, and all sorts of horrible things.

But recently, I met someone online. An atheist who claimed that Nazi's were all Christians, and that Christians hated the Jews, and were working to exterminate them. As we argued, he marshaled to his defense all kinds of bad arguments that would on the surface, seem logical to someone unfamiliar with Christianity.

For example, he claimed that verse Luke 19-27 quoted Jesus expressing his desire for domination and slaughter of nonbelievers (of course, this quote is from a parable and implies nothing of the kind). He also quoted Revelation, and I had to explain that Revelation, like the Old Testament, was sort of treated like the crazy uncle at the family reunion. They were accepted, but really Christianity focuses on the teachings of Jesus. I don't know of any churches anywhere that preach out of Revelation. It's not important how the rest of the argument went (hint: it involved me bringing up the atheist atrocities in Communist Russia), but it made me realize how bad Christianity could be made to look to someone unfamiliar with the faith.

So I wonder, are these accusations about Islam really representative of the faith as held by the majority of Muslims? Or is the Islamic faith being mischaracterized, perhaps as an excuse for war and xenophobia?

 

[Terry1]

The word of God (the bible) was written before Muhammad ever got his hands on it to rewrite it as the Quran. God warned this would happen as a result of Ismael's birth through the disobedience and disbelief of Sarah. It was a prophecy fulfilled through the line of Ismael as God called him the "the wild man" and "every hand would be against him and his hand against every man". While God's covenant was through Isaac, "the son of Promise" to Abraham.

God blessed Ismael at the time because of Abraham's love for him, but it did not change the prophecy of what would happen as a result of Sarah's disbelief and disobedience to God by and through the act of bearing a child through Hagar after God had already promised Sarah her own son Isaac (the Promise).

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The word of God (the bible) was written before Muhammad ever got his hands on it to rewrite it as the Quran. God warned this would happen as a result of Ismael's birth through the disobedience and disbelief of Sarah. It was a prophecy fulfilled through the line of Ismael as God called him the "the wild man" and "every hand would be against him and his hand against every man". While God's covenant was through Isaac, "the son of Promise" to Abraham.

God blessed Ismael at the time because of Abraham's love for him, but it did not change the prophecy of what would happen as a result of Sarah's disbelief and disobedience to God by and through the act of bearing a child through Hagar after God had already promised Sarah her own son Isaac (the Promise).

Let's put that aside though. Is the Muslim faith being mischaracterized?

Here it is, roughly 350 pages: http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.n...nt/uploads/quran-in-modern-english.pdf?b5c044

 

[Terry1]

Let's put that aside though. Is the Muslim faith being mischaracterized?

Here it is, roughly 350 pages: http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.n...nt/uploads/quran-in-modern-english.pdf?b5c044

No one can understand and recognize the real truth until they're made aware of those which are lies. God is spiritual--the only way is through prayer and the deep burning desire to know and understand what that truth is. There's only one way to truth and that's to want it above everything else.

After all, what's the point of life if we don't have the truth? Who wants to live a lie?

 

[Jamesiv1]

No one can understand and recognize the real truth until they're made aware of those which are lies. God is spiritual--the only way is through prayer and the deep burning desire to know and understand what that truth is. There's only one way to truth and that's to want it above everything else.

After all, what's the point of life if we don't have the truth? Who wants to live a lie?

That's a very good point.

So read the Quran cover to cover. And get someone like Muwahid to put into context and shed light on parts you may find questionable.

 

[Paulbot99]

Simply use your reason and look at the Quran, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsirs. Take how conquered Christians were to be treated for example:

Allah said,

﴿حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ﴾
(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,
﴿عَن يَدٍ﴾
(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,
﴿وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ﴾
(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

«لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه»

(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors ﴿of our houses of worship﴾ for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit ﴿or betrayal﴾ against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices ﴿with prayer﴾ at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2566&Itemid=64


That is the Pact of Umar as dictated by the Second Rightly Guided Caliph, one of Mohammad's companions, as quoted by Tafsir Ibn Kathir, an early interpretation of the Quran which is popular due to the use of Hadith, the sayings and teachings of Mohammad, to explain Quranic verses and teachings. Note the prohbition of fixing or building churches or buying "captured servants" who were most often Christian themselves and the Quran's description of "Jizyah", the tax paid by Non-Muslims as being paid in disgrace, subservience, etc. (Quran 9:29)

If any of these rules were broken, the "promise of protection" is broken and the Christians are to be treated as people in rebellion which meant being killed or sold into slavery. It is a humiliation condition to live in.

 

[Muwahid]

Simply use your reason and look at the Quran, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsirs. Take how conquered Christians were to be treated for example:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2566&Itemid=64


That is the Pact of Umar as dictated by the Second Rightly Guided Caliph, one of Mohammad's companions, as quoted by Tafsir Ibn Kathir, an early interpretation of the Quran which is popular due to the use of Hadith, the sayings and teachings of Mohammad, to explain Quranic verses and teachings. Note the prohbition of fixing or building churches or buying "captured servants" who were most often Christian themselves and the Quran's description of "Jizyah", the tax paid by Non-Muslims as being paid in disgrace, subservience, etc. (Quran 9:29)

If any of these rules were broken, the "promise of protection" is broken and the Christians are to be treated as people in rebellion which meant being killed or sold into slavery. It is a humiliation condition to live in.

These are highly mischaracterized verses, hadiths, and events from the Muslims.

When for example the prophet said, do not initiate greeting and push them to narrowest alley, this was because at the time the Jews and Christians conspired heavily against the Muslims, and as a result, yes the Jizyah was a punishment on them, and so was some of the actions of Muslims against them.

But this was opposed to exiling them, or executing them for which they would have had some basis for because the Christians and Jews both at some point voluntarily waged war against the Muslims, whether it was the Jews of Madinah inciting war against the Muslims, or betraying them at the battle of the Trench, or the Christians killing Muslim emissaries, they were acts of war done against the Muslims.

This is also compounded when we read hadiths such as the prophet saying man sama'aa dhimiyyan fawajabt lahu an-naar (whoever disparages a dhimmi has earned his place in hell).

So when we look at this contextually, the general rule with non-Muslims and dhimmis, is we respect them, engage with them in a friendly manner, and have peace between eachother. But there are specific instances, for example when it comes to non-Muslims waging war, how do we deal with them if we defeat them? The answer wasn't execute, or exile, but rather have them pay the jizyah, and do not subdue yourself to them, have them atone for their crimes in a manner which will suit the people they committed crimes against.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I've met lots of people online who have claimed that the Muslim religion is one of violence and domination. That Muhammed was a brutal warlord, and a pedophile, and all sorts of horrible things.

But recently, I met someone online. An atheist who claimed that Nazi's were all Christians, and that Christians hated the Jews, and were working to exterminate them. As we argued, he marshaled to his defense all kinds of bad arguments that would on the surface, seem logical to someone unfamiliar with Christianity.

For example, he claimed that verse Luke 19-27 quoted Jesus expressing his desire for domination and slaughter of nonbelievers (of course, this quote is from a parable and implies nothing of the kind). He also quoted Revelation, and I had to explain that Revelation, like the Old Testament, was sort of treated like the crazy uncle at the family reunion. They were accepted, but really Christianity focuses on the teachings of Jesus. I don't know of any churches anywhere that preach out of Revelation. It's not important how the rest of the argument went (hint: it involved me bringing up the atheist atrocities in Communist Russia), but it made me realize how bad Christianity could be made to look to someone unfamiliar with the faith.

So I wonder, are these accusations about Islam really representative of the faith as held by the majority of Muslims? Or is the Islamic faith being mischaracterized, perhaps as an excuse for war and xenophobia?

I don't like the "Revelation is the crazy uncle" defense. Revelation isn't understood by most people, but it makes sense if you understand the rest of the Bible correctly. The problem is, most people don't, so they just write it off as gibberish. It's true that it's full of parables, but the representations are usually clear with correct exegesis.

I really just think Christians need to stop saying certain parts of the Bible are less important as an actual defense of the Bible because it's really not a defense at all. If you don't understand it, then maybe you should try harder before going out and defend the Gospel to others because, when they bring up these objections, you're going to look pretty stupid trying to say that certain books of the Bible just don't hold as much weight and so, shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I don't like the "Revelation is the crazy uncle" defense. Revelation isn't understood by most people, but it makes sense if you understand the rest of the Bible correctly. The problem is, most people don't, so they just write it off as gibberish. It's true that it's full of parables, but the representations are usually clear with correct exegesis.

I really just think Christians need to stop saying certain parts of the Bible are less important as an actual defense of the Bible because it's really not a defense at all. If you don't understand it, then maybe you should try harder before going out and defend the Gospel to others because, when they bring up these objections, you're going to look pretty stupid trying to say that certain books of the Bible just don't hold as much weight and so, shouldn't be taken seriously.

Revelation is what cults and radicals preach out of. "The end is nigh" types. To me it's associated with crazies.

 

[OReich]

These are highly mischaracterized verses, hadiths, and events from the Muslims.

When for example the prophet said, do not initiate greeting and push them to narrowest alley, this was because at the time the Jews and Christians conspired heavily against the Muslims, and as a result, yes the Jizyah was a punishment on them, and so was some of the actions of Muslims against them.

But this was opposed to exiling them, or executing them for which they would have had some basis for because the Christians and Jews both at some point voluntarily waged war against the Muslims, whether it was the Jews of Madinah inciting war against the Muslims, or betraying them at the battle of the Trench, or the Christians killing Muslim emissaries, they were acts of war done against the Muslims.

This is also compounded when we read hadiths such as the prophet saying man sama'aa dhimiyyan fawajabt lahu an-naar (whoever disparages a dhimmi has earned his place in hell).

So when we look at this contextually, the general rule with non-Muslims and dhimmis, is we respect them, engage with them in a friendly manner, and have peace between eachother. But there are specific instances, for example when it comes to non-Muslims waging war, how do we deal with them if we defeat them? The answer wasn't execute, or exile, but rather have them pay the jizyah, and do not subdue yourself to them, have them atone for their crimes in a manner which will suit the people they committed crimes against.

Thank goodness you're an Islamic scholar. Contextualize these statements from Muhammad. It funny how Muhammad conquered so much land in his lifetime, and killed so many infidels. I guess every time he said all unbelievers should be killed, he really meant in the context of all those invasions of Muslim land! All that land, from modern day-Saudi Arabia to northwestern Africa, all conquered in wars of self-defense by infidels that attacked Muhammad. All the infidels on Earth were apparently hellbent on destroying Muhammad's religion before they had even heard of Muhammad. The only way to defend Muslims is to force everyone to be Muslim, right, Muhawid? All those wars of self-defense!

Btw, Muwahid, do you think ppl should be executed or punished at all for criticizing or leaving Islam? Its a relevant question, considering widespread support in the Muslim world, and your constant defense for Sharia law. You literally just said you support taxing infidels for being infidels again.

So come on, put it in context:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari (53:392) - "While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Muslim (19:4294) - "If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

Bukhari (60:80) - "The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."

Bukhari (59:643) - "Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck!"

Bukhari (53:386) - Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." This is being recounted during the reign of Umar, Muhammad's companion and the second caliph who sent conquering armies into non-Muslim Persian and Christian lands (after Muhammad's death).

Ishaq 956 & 962 - "He who withholds the Jizya is an enemy of Allah and His apostle."

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Qur'an (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (84:58) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah"

Hey Muwahid, good luck putting all of that in context. Are you sure every non-Muslim from the 600's was violently attacking Muslims, and were therefore legitimate military targets? I personally doubt that.

I'm not arguing that only Islam has this, the Jewish Torah also has violent texts; but Islamism is the ideology killing people everyday through terrorism, wars and state, and to deny the doctrinal source for the ideology is absurd. Your apologies/denial for Muhammad's atrocities are offensive and interolant.

 

[Muwahid]

Thank goodness you're an Islamic scholar. Contextualize these statements from Muhammad. It funny how Muhammad conquered so much land in his lifetime, and killed so many infidels. I guess every time he said all unbelievers should be killed, he really meant in the context of all those invasions of Muslim land! All that land, from modern day-Saudi Arabia to northwestern Africa, all conquered in wars of self-defense by infidels that attacked Muhammad. All the infidels on Earth were apparently hellbent on destroying Muhammad's religion before they had even heard of Muhammad. The only way to defend Muslims is to force everyone to be Muslim, right, Muhawid? All those wars of self-defense!

I could actually put all of those well into context, but I do not have the time, nor the desire.

If you genuinely want context into certain hadiths or Qur'anic verses I will be pleased to oblige. But as far as finding a list of so-called violent hadiths and verses, anyone can do this, there's hundreds if not thousands of sites which you may choose to copy and paste these lists from.

I'm going under the presumption you're not educated on the Islamic religion, so I would advise you do ample research before attempting to engage in debate regarding a topic you know little of.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I could actually put all of those well into context, but I do not have the time, nor the desire.

If you genuinely want context into certain hadiths or Qur'anic verses I will be pleased to oblige. But as far as finding a list of so-called violent hadiths and verses, anyone can do this, there's hundreds if not thousands of sites which you may choose to copy and paste these lists from.

I'm going under the presumption you're not educated on the Islamic religion, so I would advise you do ample research before attempting to engage in debate regarding a topic you know little of.

As someone with knowledge on Islam, how are ISIS and Al Qaida and other radical groups misinterpreting the Quran?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Revelation is what cults and radicals preach out of. "The end is nigh" types. To me it's associated with crazies.

Which is why you don't understand it.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

As someone with knowledge on Islam, how are ISIS and Al Qaida and other radical groups misinterpreting the Quran?

I guess with the same sort of reasoning as those who went on the crusades. Fueled by geopolitics and economic circumstances.

 

[Muwahid]

As someone with knowledge on Islam, how are ISIS and Al Qaida and other radical groups misinterpreting the Quran?

In terms of their justifications regarding fighting al-Assad, Iraq, then it's sound in terms of Islamic casus bellis are concerned.

In terms of some of their methods for executions, and capturing people for ransoming, not so much, and it has been horrible to watch them make sport out of executions.

It's really a mixed bag, the visceral reaction because of the enormous propaganda war being waged, would be to say they're evil and we all support the US bombs dropping on them, but in reality, have they done worse crimes than Assad, or the Iraqi regime when it would systemically target sunnis? And that's not to mention the damage the west did in the region with regard to torture, abuse, and even if we just look at the body count; civilians dead from the US invasion.

My golden standard for what a Khilaafa (Caliphate) is will always be the Rashidun Caliphate, which was the best example for an Islamic caliphate.

 

[Paulbot99]

These are highly mischaracterized verses, hadiths, and events from the Muslims.

When for example the prophet said, do not initiate greeting and push them to narrowest alley, this was because at the time the Jews and Christians conspired heavily against the Muslims, and as a result, yes the Jizyah was a punishment on them, and so was some of the actions of Muslims against them.

But this was opposed to exiling them, or executing them for which they would have had some basis for because the Christians and Jews both at some point voluntarily waged war against the Muslims, whether it was the Jews of Madinah inciting war against the Muslims, or betraying them at the battle of the Trench, or the Christians killing Muslim emissaries, they were acts of war done against the Muslims.

This is also compounded when we read hadiths such as the prophet saying man sama'aa dhimiyyan fawajabt lahu an-naar (whoever disparages a dhimmi has earned his place in hell).

So when we look at this contextually, the general rule with non-Muslims and dhimmis, is we respect them, engage with them in a friendly manner, and have peace between eachother. But there are specific instances, for example when it comes to non-Muslims waging war, how do we deal with them if we defeat them? The answer wasn't execute, or exile, but rather have them pay the jizyah, and do not subdue yourself to them, have them atone for their crimes in a manner which will suit the people they committed crimes against.

I did not take those verses and hadiths out of context. Ibn Kathir wrote one of the most respected tafsirs in the Muslim world. The Quran is explicit in 9:29 to fight the People of the Book, not because of any transgression against the Muslims, but because they are considered idolaters. It makes no mention of killing Muslim emissaries. This is claimed by modern Muslim writers, not medieval ones. And even if Muslim emissaries were killed, I hardly see the justice in punishing whole populations in their own conquered lands with the Pact of Umar for the actions of their rulers. Particularly as these conditions continue to this present day as seen whenever Christians try to build a new church in Egypt. (http://www.worldmag.com/2015/04/egyptian_church_honoring_slain_copts_attacked_by_muslim_extremists)

However, Ibn Kathir is clear about why the Christians were attacked.

http://archive.org/details/TheBattlesOfTheProphetpbuh-alhamdulillah-library.blogspot.in.pdf


Therefore this means what it sounds like it means:

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Quran 9:28-9:29]

Money. It was all about money and the Byzantines weren't there so they took the money from the Christian tribes in the area. Also, to call them to Islam. But, mostly Jizyah, methinks. After all, if they all converted, how would the poor Quraish get the money they used to get from pagans worshiping at the Kaaba?

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Let's put that aside though. Is the Muslim faith being mischaracterized?

Here it is, roughly 350 pages: http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.n...nt/uploads/quran-in-modern-english.pdf?b5c044

I guess with the same sort of reasoning as those who went on the crusades. Fueled by geopolitics and economic circumstances.

It's widely accepted that Muhammed was a warlord who killed & enslaved people for being non-muslims, raped women, engaged in pedophilia, misogynist, etc etc. you're not going to find anybody who's honest denying those things. And, Muslims look up to this guy, he's like their "hero", he's the Christian equivalent of Jesus, the Buddhist equivalent of Buddha & so on.

I'm an agnostic-atheist so I don't want to be defending any religions on here but as I do realize that not all religions are equally inimical to modern world, I'm tempted to ask this - How many people did Jesus kill & enslave? How many women & children did Buddha rape?

Again, it's important for all of us to grasp the fact that not all religions are equally bad in how they present themselves, some are worse than others, & that determines the level of violence & other depravities they inspire amongst their followers -

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

In terms of their justifications regarding fighting al-Assad, Iraq, then it's sound in terms of Islamic casus bellis are concerned.

In terms of some of their methods for executions, and capturing people for ransoming, not so much, and it has been horrible to watch them make sport out of executions.

It's really a mixed bag, the visceral reaction because of the enormous propaganda war being waged, would be to say they're evil and we all support the US bombs dropping on them, but in reality, have they done worse crimes than Assad, or the Iraqi regime when it would systemically target sunnis? And that's not to mention the damage the west did in the region with regard to torture, abuse, and even if we just look at the body count; civilians dead from the US invasion.

My golden standard for what a Khilaafa (Caliphate) is will always be the Rashidun Caliphate, which was the best example for an Islamic caliphate.

Hold on now, you are justifying ISIS? You are saying that besides some of the methods of execution, that it's consistent with Islam? How many Muslims would you say share this sentiment?

 

[hells_unicorn]

Hold on now, you are justifying ISIS? You are saying that besides some of the methods of execution, that it's consistent with Islam? How many Muslims would you say share this sentiment?

If you look historically at Islam, it has always had a strongly imperialistic flavor to it and a preference towards centralized authority. To be fair, this is something that they've shared in common with the ultramontanist movement within Roman Catholicism from the early days up until they completely took over in the late 1800s, but Islam has generally mirrored their Arian/Unitarian version of God with an autocratic secular governing system that is about as closely beholden to the clergy as many medieval kings were to the Pope.

I wouldn't be surprised if anywhere from 70-80% of Sunni Muslims approve of the caliphate concept, so being favorable toward ISIS isn't so far fetched, and I'd venture a guess that most Shiite ones would feel similarly if ISIS was trying to establish a caliphate according to their doctrines and practices.

 

[Influenza]

In terms of their justifications regarding fighting al-Assad, Iraq, then it's sound in terms of Islamic casus bellis are concerned.

In terms of some of their methods for executions, and capturing people for ransoming, not so much, and it has been horrible to watch them make sport out of executions.

It's really a mixed bag, the visceral reaction because of the enormous propaganda war being waged, would be to say they're evil and we all support the US bombs dropping on them, but in reality, have they done worse crimes than Assad, or the Iraqi regime when it would systemically target sunnis? And that's not to mention the damage the west did in the region with regard to torture, abuse, and even if we just look at the body count; civilians dead from the US invasion.

My golden standard for what a Khilaafa (Caliphate) is will always be the Rashidun Caliphate, which was the best example for an Islamic caliphate.

He probably is defending ISIS, as DevilsAdvocate suggested, because he very clearly has a Sunni ideology, which has wholly been infiltrated by Wahhabi and takfiri thinkers. If you're wondering what Wahhabism is, its a super conservative Sunni branch from which we have the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Nusra, and probably the majority of all their "Syrian" rebel group allies.

If we want to look at ISIS from an Islamic perspective, we can look at the history of extremism in Islam, which began at least during the reign of the 4th caliph, 30 years or so after the Prophet Mohammad had died. The first "extremist group" in Islam were called the Khawarij, and if you want to learn about them you can follow this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij

There is also a hadith from the Prophet Mohammad which can be understood as a reference to extremism:

"There will come a time when a group of people will leave our ranks. They will recite the Quran with fervour and passion (lit. "With tongues that are moist") but its spirit will not go beyond their throats. They will leave our ranks in the manner of an arrow when it shoots from its bow."

What I believe this means is that Mohammad is suggesting that an extremist Muslim has actually left Islam (from the perspective of God) but will continue to act on what he believes is the behalf of Islam & Muslims.

The idea that is central to groups like ISIS is takfirism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri. They believe that there is Muslim and there is Non-Muslim, and those that are Non-Muslim must either be terribly subjugated, and if not, killed.

And I'd like to ask why Muwahid believes the Rashidun caliphate was a golden standard for Islam. Is it just in the name? And if there is some legitimate reason that you believe the first 3 Caliphs were in fact, great leaders, I'd like to know how you would explain Abu Bakr's act of waging war against those who wouldn't pay him allegiance... and maybe.. this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_at_Fatimah's_house ?