Does Islam force itself on others?

a reply to: Sahabi

originally posted by: Sahabi
The interpretation of Qur'an is what causes ideological differing. We have moved beyond ideological interpretations by viewing actual historic events.

Have we? I don't remember doing that. Considering this thread is about what Islam forces or doesn't force, or commands and doesn't command, it seems much more important to focus on ideological interpretations than our interpretations and perceptions of the history.
We have some historical context in terms of the hadith, but beyond that -especially in terms of Ibn Hisham/Ishaq's thoroughly unreliable (in the context of the religion of Islam) work that seems to be relied on so heavily- it all seems a matter of "this was response to that aggression", "this was caused by that" "they started first", "no, they did", with people finding whatever justifications and reasonings and interpretations to explain away things or to create issues. Following that would just lead us into a pointless sinkhole, because again, the context of this discussion is what Islam commands, not what we think were the motives of the people who caused the genesis of those commandments.

Of course, again, you've developed for yourself a narrative where "Oh, the Quran is not in chronological order so it is impossible to understand, thus we must use other sources", and then you bring in even more variant interpretations, so I guess again, you don't want to look at it that way. You seem to repeat that so very often, but it never really seems a justified opinion, just something to constantly parrot. I've never had trouble understanding the Quran as a whole, or even chapters individually, in terms of getting the general gist of things (for which the common translations are more than adequate) or to understand intricacies of specific wordsings (for which there are loads of comparative tools available online), and I'm not an arabic speaker/reader.

a reply to: babloyi

If you want to focus on ideological interpretation then how do you blindly hop over the fact that an older version of the Koran exists than the time around the birth of Mohammad?

If it was already doing the rounds then Mohammad can't have been God's prophet because God had already given his teachings elsewhere? You can't fudge scientific proof with lies, however much it doesn't suit one's beliefs.

I was taught as a child, when the brain washing of religion - whichever one it is - gets subtly put into one's head, that the bible was right, society swore oaths on it etc. etc. However getting older I decided to research what I had been taught, simply because what one believes is vital to being true to oneself. When I discovered its history and how it came into being - I lost all respect for religion, except the few good things it reminds humans to do for each other.

Islam illustrates the utmost of duality. It contains Love/Hate,... Acceptance/Intolerance,... Peace/Violence,... Religious Freedom / Religious Superiority.

• During the early Meccan revelations and historic events of the Meccan period, the Qur'an, Muhammad, and Muslims preached peace, compassion, acceptance, and non-violence.

• During the later Medinan revelations and historic events of the Medinan period, the Qur'an, Muhammad, and Muslims propagated violence, war, religious superiority, intolerance, and expansionism.

These are matters of fact, not sectarian/personal interpretation or opinion.

How do we judge hearts and characters? Do we judge simply by our pasts, or by the later outcome of the past? If a person was wicked during youth, and moved toward righteousness in adulthood, they are remembered by their change into their latest character quality. Islam began righteous and ended in wickedness. But we are to commemorate the righteous Meccan period but ignore the wicked Medinan period?

a reply to: Shiloh7

Are you referring to the "Birmingham Qur'an", also known as Mingana Islamic Arabic 1572a?

It was subjected to radiocarbon analysis at the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit and have been dated to 568-645 CE with 95.4% probability.
Muhammad lived from 570-632. I do not feel the radiocarbon dating is strong enough to say that it was definitively written before Muhammad or Islam.

It is quite possible that the vellum parchment of the Birmingham fragment had been recycled from an earlier use. There are many examples of ancient Qur'anic manuscripts that were scribed over previously used texts. The Sana'a Codex is the most famous Qur'anic manuscript that illustrates erasure and re-writing.


Sana'a Codex

Additionally, the writing of the parchment is representative of the archaic Hijazi script, which is an ancient writing style particular to both the time and location of Islam's conception.

a reply to: Shiloh7

originally posted by: Shiloh7
If you want to focus on ideological interpretation then how do you blindly hop over the fact that an older version of the Koran exists than the time around the birth of Mohammad?

Essentially what Sahabi said. The date range given for the Birmingham manuscript does contain time before Muhammad was supposed to have received his revelations (and two years before he was supposedly born), but I don't see how that proves that it existed before Muhammad. It is a range. You MIGHT say it existed before Muhammad supposedly received his revelations, but you'd need some other evidence than a manuscript that could've been written any time in that range.

a reply to: Sahabi

originally posted by: Sahabi
Islam began righteous and ended in wickedness. But we are to commemorate the righteous Meccan period but ignore the wicked Medinan period?

I'm sorry, I don't divide Islam into a "Meccan period" or a Medinan period". You REALLY seem obsessed with chronology. I take it as a cohesive and complete whole. And it works perfectly fine like that.
Yes, there are situations when fighting is allowed (and perhaps even necessary). Yes, outside of those very narrow range of situations, the command is for peace.

a reply to: babloyi

Adolph Hitler is remembered for his apathetic military campaigns and expansionism at the end of his life. He is not 'celebrated' for his artistic talents, social reforms, uniting the German people, leading his nation out of an economic depression, or invigorating the fields of engineering, science, and technology. His intolerance and violence tarnished any good that he has done. The same can be said about Muhammad.

Muhammad did not fight in "certain" situations, he started fighting and never stopped. He began by robbing caravans and shedding blood once he found himself with a power base in Medina at the helm of willing soldiers. All the way up to his death, Muhammad ordered assassinations and military campaigns against those in his vicinity who would not convert or pay tribute. Even the Qur'an says to nullify all treaties of peace. As each individual society became converted or conquered, Muhammad began expanding his campaigns and territory further. The overwhelming majority of his campaigns were waged on rumor, suspicion, or paranoia, all of which, were preemptively fought on foreign soil.

Just like Hitler, Muhammad began as a Unifier and ended as a Totalitarianist.

Shall we remember Hitler as a "cohesive and complete whole," to sugar-coat his atrocities while celebrating his positive accomplishments?

a reply to: Sahabi
Godwin's Law ftw!
Wait, are you comparing Hitler to Islam, or to Muhammad? Because again, as far as I'm aware, the topic here is about ISLAM.
While the history of Muhammad's military campaigns would definitely make a very interesting topic to discuss (although again, with the conflicting sources and the amount of "They started it" "No, they did!" that people can resort and loop into, it would seem a bit pointless), the topic under discussion here is whether ISLAM forces itself on others. And certainly, Muhammad's actions, insofar as covered in the Quran and Sahih Hadith (which, again, as you mentioned before, are open to a lot of interpretation), are definitely part of that, but going beyond the scope of that is meaningless as far as religious injunction to muslims is concerned.

It is quite amazing how you seem to be so absolutely unable to focus on that.

Your one reference to scripture takes a command issued during a specific incident at a specific time, and for some reason applies it wholesale to all of Islam and Muslims for all time? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If it did, all muslims would forever be going back and forth in the lands for four months perpetually, which doesn't even make sense.

a reply to: babloyi

You have not disproven my statements, you only ignored the historic events and disagreed with the Islamic evidences that I provided. You are illustrating opinionated disagreement, not disproving my replies.

The OP compared Islam to Christianity to illustrate similarity of doctrinal violence. Therefore, this thread is open to comparison beyond Islam.




Hitler:

• Began his mission by non-violent oration.

• United a people under social reform.

• Created the religious and political ideology of Nazism based upon a revitalizing of older belief systems: Paganism and Occultism.

• Incited supremacy and separation: Arian versus non-Arian.

• Spread his territory and ideology through war.

• Targeted the Jews: Concentration Camps.



Muhammad:

• Began his mission by non-violent oration.

• United a people under social reform.

• Created the religious and political ideology of Islam based upon a revitalizing of older belief systems: Judaism and Christianity.

• Incited supremacy and separation: Muslim versus non-Muslim.

• Spread his territory and ideology through war.

• Targeted the Jews: Converted, Conquered (Tributary Payments), Expelled out of Arabia.






The Qur'anic verses demanding the subjugation, conversion, or conquest of non-believers were revealed hand-and-hand as Muhammad and his army actively pursued this goal. This objective was extended to those outside of Muhammad's jurisdiction, until that outside sovereignty fell under his control. The fact of history is, this campaign went on ceaselessly until Muhammad's death, and continued with his successors.

After the Medinan edicts to nullify treaties, wage war, convert, conquer, and subjugate non-believers were enacted,... freedom of religion no longer existed. This is, in fact, a direct rebuttal to the OP.

a reply to: Sahabi

originally posted by: Sahabi
You have not disproven my statements, you only ignored the historic events and disagreed with the Islamic evidences that I provided. You are illustrating opinionated disagreement, not disproving my replies.

The OP compared Islam to Christianity to illustrate similarity of doctrinal violence. Therefore, this thread is open to comparison beyond Islam.

You're absolutely right, I have not. I haven't even acknowledged them, because they're irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
If you want to start a thread on the historicity of various military campaigns by Muhammad, go ahead!
The OP made some references to Christian scriptures with relation to Islamic scriptures. I don't see what this has to do with anything you're talking about.

originally posted by: Sahabi
After the Medinan edicts to nullify treaties, wage war, convert, conquer, and subjugate non-believers were enacted,... freedom of religion no longer existed. This is, in fact, a direct rebuttal to the OP.

Again, you mean the verse nullifying the SPECIFIC TREATY between the Muslims and the Pagan Meccans at the time that the Pagan Meccans then broke, which then had Quranic injunctions that released muslims from THAT SPECIFIC treaty?

a reply to: babloyi

You forgot verses 4 and 5:

"4. Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

5. And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."


During and after the Medinan period, Muhammad and his successors did indeed expand territory, assassinate, attack, conquer, convert, subjugate, and expel based upon religious grounds. This is forcing itself on others.

a reply to: babloyi

Pagans and Jews loved breaking treaties with Muhammad and they all met the end of a sword for breaking these treaties

a reply to: Sahabi
And you forgot what comes after that, and I forgot what comes after that, and you, and I, and then just read the entire surah, which would still support my view, if you ask me.
Regardless of that, nice to see then that you acknowledge that it wasn't some everlasting command for all muslims for all time.

a reply to: JDmOKI

originally posted by: JDmOKI
Pagans and Jews loved breaking treaties with Muhammad and they all met the end of a sword for breaking these treaties

Not sure what you mean exactly. Yes, according to the traditional narrative, they broke their treaties, and yes, that caused potential for (or in some cases actual) loss of life, and yes, they were retaliated against for that.
Muhammad wasn't just a religious head, he was a head of state as well, of sorts.

a reply to: babloyi

I mean to say that Muhammad was a religious warlord

a reply to: babloyi

Mohommad didn't start teaching until 613 - so the date of from 568 leaves him running behind somewhat doesn't it?
Looking through his history of how he came to his education, religious aberrations and deliberations he obviously had a previously constructed framework to start with.

Great go ahead with whatever you wish to tell yourself - working as a complete whole with the number of murders it carries out and suicide bombings etc - well whatever you value.

a reply to: JDmOKI
I suppose if one's definition of "warlord" is "Someone who deals with enters treaties and then deals with those who break them", then yes.

a reply to: Shiloh7

originally posted by: Shiloh7
Mohommad didn't start teaching until 613 - so the date of from 568 leaves him running behind somewhat doesn't it?

Not sure what you mean. The dating of the Birmingham Manuscript is a range of possibility, not a range of how long it took to be written- i.e. with 95.4% probability, it was written some time between 568 and 645 CE.
According to traditional islamic history, the Quran was revealed between 610 and 632. While we have no reason to think that at the time the manuscript was written the entire Quran wasn't revealed, the earliest Surah (Surah Maryam or Surah Ta-ha) in the manuscript is (traditionally thought to be) from around 615 CE, and the last Surah (Surah Al-Hajj) is from around 622-623 CE).

Not sure how much more easily I can explain it. Here is a diagram:

The entire range represents the possible date of the writing of the Birmingham manuscript. It could have been written at ANY time during that range. The red area is the range that traditional islam says the manuscript could have been written (it could have been written any time during that range). You'll notice that the red area is inside the range- so there is no contradiction between the carbon dating of the manuscript and the traditional understanding of when the manuscript could possibly have been written.

Most interestingly, this manuscript is from BEFORE Uthman "canonised" it from a single copy. So unless this just HAPPENS to be the copy Uthman canonised (incredibly unlikely, but would be a huge historical find), or a copy of that copy before it was canonised, it seems that the ordering has remained the same, and form of the Quran matches closely with what we have today.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
Great go ahead with whatever you wish to tell yourself - working as a complete whole with the number of murders it carries out and suicide bombings etc - well whatever you value.

No idea what you're talking about here. But cheers!

Welp...realised a mistake in my diagram after the edit slot closed. The red bar should be from 622 CE onwards, not 615.

a reply to: Sahabi

So, if Islam is like Christianity, and Islam is like Nazism, then
Christ is like Hitler?