Does Islam espouse violence?

I have always heard that Islam is a religion of peace. I have also heard that Islam is a religion that espouses tolerance, especially towards religions that also believe in one God (often referred to as people of the "book"); ie. Judaism and Christianity. But I am having great difficulty understanding the contradictions between what Islam teaches and the actions of it's adherents.

Of course, one could make similar arguments at almost all the other religions. Yes, Christianity espouses itself to be a religion of peace but one can also readily point out all the violent atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. However, Christians themselves have condemned these actions. The Roman Catholic Church apologized for the centuries of persecutions that the Jewish people endured. Christians, for the most part have accepted the blame for the errors of their actions over history. What about Islam?

I am not trying to "slam" Islam. Nor am I trying to defame Islam. I just want to learn more. I understand that religion is a very sensitive subject for many people. But I cannot comprehend such violence as we have seen over recent days spawned by anger over a cartoon published in a Danish newspaper. How ironic that a cartoon presenting an image of "the Prophet" wearing a bomb-shaped turban-- implying that Islam is violent -- would spawn exactly the sentiment that the cartoon was implying!

I have heard that many Muslims have been angered because it is a violation of Islamic Law to portray "the Prophet" in art as this could lead to idolatry. Would anyone really idolize a cartoon depiction of the Prophet or, for that matter Jesus. It's a cartoon!

This is 2006. supposedly we are modern people. We have collectively condemned various religions for their past actions and, for the most part, religion has reformed itself. The Christians no longer burn anyone at the stake and witch trials no longer take place. The Pope no longer rides his charger at the head of a crusade. Religious leaders have apologized for the past misdeeds of their faith. What about Islam? Is Islam still in a period of darkness? Is Islam unable to regulate itself or contain the ignorance of its' adherents? Or, is Islam inherently violent just as the Danish cartoon suggested? What are your comments? I would especially like to hear from someone who is of the Islamic faith. Perhaps we could learn from hearing a reply to some of these questions.

Religion, including Islam, is always a catalyst to violence, but never the cause. Even the Crusades were never caused by religion, but rather in response to Muslim advances into Europe, primarily through Spain.

The Middle East has been in violent turmoil for a number of decades now, and most of the problems were likely economic and territorial originally, but as the West began to meddle more and more in this already violence-ridden region, its problems spread, and the focus shifted away from economics and territory to that of religion (because it's an easy excuse).

It's easy to motivate angry people when one plays the religion card. Why are they angry? They don't remember. They just remember that someone slighted their religion.

PS Another catalyst in this volatile mix is the culture of death that's perpetuated in many regions of the Middle East. While it may tie in with the religion card, many of its components are independent of the religion card.

[edit on 2/5/2006 by supercheetah]

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
I have always heard that Islam is a religion of peace. I have also heard that Islam is a religion that espouses tolerance, especially towards religions that also believe in one God (often referred to as people of the "book"); ie. Judaism and Christianity. But I am having great difficulty understanding the contradictions between what Islam teaches and the actions of it's adherents.

in reality people will kill you if you mess around with them enough. incidently every where america,britian go everybody wants to kill them :

-arabs muslims and antionalists in the middle east.
-asian atieists and buddists in vietnam.
-white chrsitians in northen ireland.
etc...

so this isnt just limited to muslims alot of problems with people who are now muslims existed before they where even muslims for example chechnyans have been fighting russians for independence for almost 400 years they only became muslim a few hundred years back but the when they started the war they where not even muslims but now they are majority muslims in chechnya becuase there families converted but they still continue to fight so it doesnt really matter what religon they would be today they would still fight.

the above is true but also an example of some of the problems with muslims today people seem to assume some of the problems are becuase they are muslims poeple dont realise the problems would still be there even if they wearnt muslims.

now to britain and america they are targeted becuase they always go into other poeple countries and try to change geo-politics, overthrow goverments like they did in iran by overthrowing democracy and installing puppet dictator like the Shah, arming funding and supporting dictators which are unpopular wit the local population etc...

america(since 1940's) and britian(1900) have been meddaling around and manipulating the middle east for energy and regional dominence. this is why there is huge hatred for britian and america in the middle east. alot of people dont realise this but only about 65-70% of arabs are muslims the others are christians and jews even they the christian and jewish arabs despise america and britian for what they do in arab countries just as much as the muslims.

violence is going to exist in any situation where you try to interfere in any independent group or nation just like when britian tried to meddle around in N.Ireland they got the IRA and this is exactly what happened in the middle east and groups like al-queda exploited this and this led to the modern muslim millitant.

[edit on 5-2-2006 by iqonx]

mod edit to shorten quote

[edit on 5-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Sure, go ahead and mis-direct the actual topic.

Islam paints itself as a religion of peace, but the proof is in the pudding, to use an old phrase. Mullahs (Religious Authorities) often preach violence against "infidels" in the Mosques which is why you see so many Muslims going on attacks after a visit to the Mosque. It is a religion of death which promises 72 Virgins and 9 young boys for all Martyrs to the "cause".

Mohammed is the only major religious figure in the last 2000 years that actually killed his critics and enemies. Think about it, A MURDERER leading a religion?!?

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
I have always heard that Islam is a religion of peace. I have also heard that Islam is a religion that espouses tolerance, especially towards religions that also believe in one God (often referred to as people of the "book"); ie. Judaism and Christianity. But I am having great difficulty understanding the contradictions between what Islam teaches and the actions of it's adherents.

The same thing can be said for Christianity and those who claim to be its followers. I am a Christian, and I am deeply dismayed at what spews forth from today's so-called followers of Christ. They speak and behave in a manner that in no way reflects the teaching of Jesus Christ. They are hypocrits and warmongers, unapologetic and judgemental. Frankly, that scares me, especially as I see my nation, once the beacon of the world in freedom, becoming thoroughly fascist.

People around the world hear the lunatic speech coming from the so-called Rev. Pat Robertson and they probably believe that most Christians and Americans support what he says. What they might not know is that most Americans think he's a nut case.

'We should kill that leader, take him out..' why? Because he doesn't agree with our way of doing things....

Insane.

Before we go around pointing our annointed fingers at Islam, we should first get our own spiritual houses in order.

One thing Jesus taught that I think is most important (and overlooked): judge not, lest ye be judged.

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
Sure, go ahead and mis-direct the actual topic.

Islam paints itself as a religion of peace, but the proof is in the pudding, to use an old phrase. Mullahs (Religious Authorities) often preach violence against "infidels" in the Mosques which is why you see so many Muslims going on attacks after a visit to the Mosque. It is a religion of death which promises 72 Virgins and 9 young boys for all Martyrs to the "cause".

Mohammed is the only major religious figure in the last 2000 years that actually killed his critics and enemies. Think about it, A MURDERER leading a religion?!?

I call BS. Go do some research on the Albigensian Crusade and Pope Innocent III.

Pope Innocent the III never weilded a sword.

Mohammed was known for being on the site of battle and killing
innocent civilians.

ECK, BS! There is no where that Chritianity is being the rally cry for any war, terror, or killing. This, on the other hand, is the case in regard to Islam.
This can also be totally validated through the Qu'ran and associated hadiths, but the same cannot be so with the Bible.

When a lunatic does something and claims to be a christian, it is note-worthy. When the same occurs in the name of Islam, it is routine, nowadays.

The two cannot be compared with any sense of logic or rationality. To try to do so is grasping at straws.

I also throw the BS flag. The Crusades were a defensive response to the Islamic persecution of not only the Holy Lands, but also the encroachment into Europe.
The destruction of Churches, the slaughter of non-Muslims, it is clear what drove the Crusades.

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
Pope Innocent the III never weilded a sword.

Mohammed was known for being on the site of battle and killing
innocent civilians.

Sometimes the psychological sword is far more powerful than the physical one. I'm willing to bet that bin Laden rarely, if ever, wields a weapon, and if he does, it's probably for show.

2stepsfromtop

Islam paints itself as a religion of peace, but the proof is in the pudding, to use an old phrase. Mullahs (Religious Authorities) often preach violence against "infidels" in the Mosques which is why you see so many Muslims going on attacks after a visit to the Mosque. It is a religion of death which promises 72 Virgins and 9 young boys for all Martyrs to the "cause".

That's absolute nonsense. Martyrs are said to be blessed with 72 grapes of infinite clarity - look it up. There is no mention of virgins or young boys (those may have been promised by disreputable mullahs, but there is no precedent in the teachings of M). The fact that some political leaders choose to manipulate innocent idiots is not the fault of the religion, it's the fault of the manipulators and the manipulated.

Put the blame where it belongs!

Mohammed is the only major religious figure in the last 2000 years that actually killed his critics and enemies. Think about it, A MURDERER leading a religion?!?

Another huge stinking pile of crap. You're obviously not a student of religion or history but, unfortunately, I am. There have been COUNTLESS outbreaks of violence in the last 2000 driven by religious leaders, or nationalistic leaders using a religious pretext.

The fact that M actually wielded the sword is not a blemish on his character. It simply shows he wasn't a limp-wristed sicko like the church leaders who contract out their violence to disaffected peasants and greedy land-owning gentry. You fault him for doing his own dirty work instead of manipulating people into doing it for him? For shame.

M was a conflicted man. He didn't want war, he didn't want violence, he certainly didn't want a feud between the peeps of the book and the ummah. He thought he could bring a revelation to the arabs and bring about some kind of spiritual parity. It didn't work out I guess, because all three groups have been very, very bad to each other.

Obviously this issue takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to unravel properly, which explains the shortage of objective scholarly input one has to deal with when discussing the subject. Crusades scholars are few and far between these days, most of them fell prey to hackery and chose a side.

The Crusades were a defensive response to the Islamic persecution of not only the Holy Lands, but also the encroachment into Europe.
The destruction of Churches, the slaughter of non-Muslims, it is clear what drove the Crusades.

Utter nonsense. What did the Christians do on their way to the holy land Thomas? What about the blood libel and the burning of Jews? It wasn't the Muslims doing that my friend...

The crusades were a horrible period of history, but you're not even trying to make sense of them. You're just propagandizing the situation for the benefit of 'your side', without a care in the world for the actual events. (You're not the only one, there are 'scholars' on the other side who claim Islam bears no responsibility and the Christians were just greedy and mean, that's a huge error as well, different, but no better).

When Islam concquered Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, did they massacre the people? Nope, they left them alive to run things. Did they impose their religion? Nope, Christians and Jews remained free to worship as they chose. Now maybe you can remind us all what happened when the Christians embarked on their 'defensive' crusade to retake the lands? They did massacre people, they did burn cities and villages to the ground and butchered the livestock. Defensive my foot. If they were engaged in defense they wouldn't have slaughtered so many innocent people.

The differences in tactics are clear to the impartial observer. When M's armies came to the outskirts of a city/village, they made their intentions clear. "We're going to concquer you, whether you like it or not. Now, do you want to do this the hard way or the easy way?" The easy way entailed no killing, no burning, no destruction. Islam took control of the area (in name only for the most part), and moved on. They garrisoned their troops OUTSIDE the city, and almost never abused local populations.

Were the Western European Christians afraid the Eastern Christians were going to side with Islam, is that why they ground them under foot? Were they afraid the Jews looked too much like the invaders, was that why they massacred them wholesale? What was the logic in butchering babies and women who weren't even muslims? Obviously there was none. The orgy of violence and destruction took on a mind of its own and mob mentality drove the crusaders to ever greater heights of brutality.

If you're seriously interested in discussing the events, and the context in which they took place, I'd love to do so.

[edit on 5-2-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Sorry, I don't have time foryou right now as I am performing an American ritual right now, but after the game, I will explain to you that your religion was nothing when the God of Abraham created the area, and then Christianity came about and was in that area.

I'll also cover the otehr myths, such as living under dhimmi status was a lovely thing. I'll mention a few destroyed churches, very early churches, and give stats in regard to those murdered at the hands of Islam. If I am in the shape, I shall even quote so ewho were alive in that time, in the grips of your beloved blood-thirsty heroes.

After ward, WyrdeOne, I will put this thread back on target, explaining beyond a shadow of a doubt how Islam as brought to us by your "prophet", is a violent belief that gives the likes of me the option of conversion, Jisya, or death.

Yes, I am willing to explain this again, as it seems that there are still those who want to spread propaganda and be part of one of the most dangerous conspiracies of our time.

Go STEELERS! Or, SEAHAWKS! Oh, Heck, I don't care, GIVE ME ANOTHER COLD ONE!

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
2stepsfromtop

It is a religion of death which promises 72 Virgins and 9 young boys for all Martyrs to the "cause".

That's absolute nonsense. Martyrs are said to be blessed with 72 grapes of infinite clarity - look it up. There is no mention of virgins or young boys ..... it's the fault of the manipulators and the manipulated.

Put the blame where it belongs!

I put the Blame where it belongs, now stop with the Muslim Revisionism. I looked it up ... for all our viewers, welcome to school ...

72 Grapes? B.S. Revisionism I tried to find it, I couldn't find a peep about it!
72 Virgins! Gu-ar-an-teed! Yee Ha! gimme the palace and the jewels and the babes just for saying "hi!" Come to think of it, it's a pretty generous package for praying five times a day for a lifetime, makes me wonder what Allah gets out of the deal? But then, how do we know it's the real deal and not just a smoke dream?

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
Mohammed is the only major religious figure in the last 2000 years that actually killed his critics and enemies. Think about it, A MURDERER leading a religion?!?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Another huge stinking pile of crap. You're obviously not a student of religion or history but, unfortunately, I am.
The fact that M actually wielded the sword is not a blemish on his character. It simply shows he wasn't a limp-wristed sicko ... You fault him for doing his own dirty work .... M was a conflicted man. He didn't want war, he didn't want violence, he certainly didn't want a feud between the peeps of the book and the ummah. It didn't work out ...

As you stated, unfortunately YOU are the student, and not a very good one at that.

You are by default stating that because MohamMad was a hands on murderer, it makes him a more powerful holy man? How about Charles Manson? Will you worship at the altar of Charlie?

Sure MoHamMad did most of his own dirty work, somehow history does not represent him as conflicted, but knowing and planning exactly what he wanted to do. The results are directly from his own planning and leadership ... live with it or find another religion to follow.

I will explain to you that your religion was nothing when the God of Abraham created the area, and then Christianity came about and was in that area.

My religion? You were talking to me right? I don't have a religion, I have faith and humility in the face of divine splendour instead.

I find the concept of basing law on fairy tales absurd to say the least.

I'll also cover the otehr myths, such as living under dhimmi status was a lovely thing.

That is a myth, you're right. Apartheid of any variety is wrong, IMO. Then again, the dhimma was ENORMOUSLY tolerant by the standards of the day. By current Western standards it's an abomination of segregation and slavery, but what are you gonna do? (Europe was still evicting and persecuting Jews 1300 years later, so what does that tell you? Were the European Jews guaranteed property, life, and freedom of religion? No, they were guaranteed the right to lose their belongings and their lives.) Some believe it justice, even to this day, and they're quite obviously wrong. That's PRECISELY what I'm arguing against in this thread and so many others.

Historically speaking, the fact that non-muslims were guaranteed life, liberty, wealth, (private) worship, and so on, that's amazing in my mind. This was a period where tolerance for certain individuals was actually written into law, binding, civil law. Secular wars were never so polite, and Jews would have sacrificed their left foot for such agreeable treatment in Europe, where they had undergone endless persecution.

When the 'defensive' crusade started in 1095, anti-semitism sank to new depths in Europe. In fact, European Christians cultured and nourished anti-semitism to a shocking degree. If you want to talk about espousing violence...

The faiths themselves espouse no such thing, but the men who filter it for the masses have, time and time again, led populations to ruinous war. Hasn't anyone gotten the hint yet?

If I am in the shape, I shall even quote so ewho were alive in that time, in the grips of your beloved blood-thirsty heroes.

After ward, WyrdeOne, I will put this thread back on target, explaining beyond a shadow of a doubt how Islam as brought to us by your "prophet", is a violent belief that gives the likes of me the option of conversion, Jisya, or death.

He's not my prophet dude, and all my heroes are animated. I usually refer to him as M, or 'the prophet', because I don't know to spell his name correctly.

Yes, I am willing to explain this again, as it seems that there are still those who want to spread propaganda and be part of one of the most dangerous conspiracies of our time.

You think there's a conspiracy to institute hardliner sharia law in the united states? This is an 80% Christian country TC, what's your concern? Are you worried about Africa? There's plenty of constructive things we can all do to help those people, besides hating Muslims.

Is that why the whole "you're either with us or against us" spiel played so well down south? Was it the religious mentality being played to?

The terrorism and killings in the name of religion has nothing to do with religion at all, its about power.

extremists are using Islam to gain power for themselves so that they may say who can do what and how they can do it. They also get to be at the top of the food chain with all the perks and privelages that go with the position.

What is happening in Islam is not about religion, its about a few greedy men who want power and are using religion to get it.

Just my thoughts,

Wupy

I put the Blame where it belongs, now stop with the Muslim Revisionism. I looked it up ... for all our viewers, welcome to school ...

You're taking us to school? That would make you a professor? The Koran is the most poetic, hardest to translate religious document in history. I presume you're just floating in a sea of higher education degrees? (I would think you'd need at least three, if not five, to teach a proper class on the Koran, incorporating history, theology, poetry, linguistics, and dead languages)

Maybe seven if you include learning about theories of jurisprudence and mathematics...

www.indcjournal.com...

wwww.thisisrumorcontrol.org...

Paradise is said to be full of fruit, lush and abundant, including white grapes. White grapes just so happen to have black 'eyes', don't they?

It's an issue of interpretation, not fact. Because the one who transcribed the poetry did so using a number of languages interchangeably, it becomes as daunting a translation task as you're likely to encounter on the planet earth.

(It wouldn't be the first intentional mistranslation of the word 'virgin' by a religion, would it? The Christians have been doing that for a LONG time. It's just mythological story elements added in their case, as opposed to Islam's mistake which appears to occur because of the difficulty of the translation - that's not the case with the other side's mistranslation.)

But keep on thinking you rock! The man who remains forever a student remains ever humble. You presume too much I think, about both of us.

But then, how do we know it's the real deal and not just a smoke dream?

We don't! That's what's so freakin' hilarious about the world's religious leanings. It's all probably nothing more than a series of drug induced halluncinations!

The fact that people take ANY of it as seriously as they do is a source of non-stop amusement for me.

As you stated, unfortunately YOU are the student, and not a very good one at that.

You are by default stating that because MohamMad was a hands on murderer, it makes him a more powerful holy man? How about Charles Manson? Will you worship at the altar of Charlie?

Do American soldiers during war time get charged with murder when they shoot someone on the opposing side? Of course not. Murder is against the law in civil societies, but daily fare on the battlefield.

I also don't think he was a holy man. He was a poet and a politician and a military general, as far as I can tell (though he certainly thought he was more, we have no direct line to God with which to confirm such claims). He was rather accomplished at all three of his WORLDY pursuits, if you look at the respective fruits of those three labors.

The lyrical complexity of the koran gets high artistic marks, and the feat of uniting the arab tribes is historically noteworthy. His battle strategies were pretty interesting also, and when you combine the three he would have made a great Taoist (he may or may not have been literate, I assume he was).

You think he wasn't conflicted, and that's your perogative. I've always seen him as a sensitive warrior, which is, BTW, is a popular protagonist in mythology and fiction from all parts of the globe...

Sure MoHamMad..

What a droll and uninspired pun! Are you a writer for the New Yorker?


[edit on 5-2-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Looky there! the Steelers won another Super Bowl. Good for them. Regardless of the outcome, the refreshments were going to insure that my usually lousy typing was going to be worse than normal, so please, have patience. I am afraid that any attempt to edit will only make matters worse.

Wyrde One, I am glad you are a student of religion. If this be the case, then you will be receptive to a little information.

You say that Muhammad was a conflicted man. Which was he? Was he a conflicted man, or was he a prophet of Allah? Yes, he can be both, but if he is a true prophet, he will simply pass on the info as given by Allah, right. He couldbe a stark raving madman, but Allah should be in total control. Fact of the matter is, the writing makes it pretty clear that, while not attempting to represent himself as the Son of God, Muhammad did as he thought fitting for his newly-created religion and to do that which would be best to further it. It is pretty obvious how the attitude changed between his time in Mecca and Medina.

First, let us go to the Crusades, as you say I am not even trying to make sense of them. Ok. Here we go. This will be a condensed version, but it will suffice.

The Muslims conquored the Jeruslaem in 638. Obviously, I will call that number, "A.D." rather than "C.E." in order to drive home a point. The point should clearly be who was there first, and who has Holy dibs on it. After their conquest, the Muslims crucified 60 Christian pilgrims who were coming from Amorium. I'm sure they saw some sick irony in the crucifixion of the Christians, but I imagine that was small comfort to them while they died such a horrible death.
Being the student of religion (what a big field to study! I try to learn my own, as well as the one that seems to drive many to kill others, but maybe I am not as intelligent and capable, I dunno) I am sure you have heard of the Muslims governor of Caesarea who grabbed ahold of a bunch of pilgrims from Iconium and had all of them executed, except for a small few who agreed to convert. Hey; he was a nice and gentle guy, it isn't his fault that all of them didn't chose to convert, right? Regardless, Muslims made a better, more lucrative point of demanding money from pilgrims in return for NOT ransacking the Church of the Resurrection. How polite of these peaceful people, I would say. Wouldn't you agree?

It got even worse, later in the eighth century under Muslim dominance. The Muslim ruler decided that the symbol of the cross was offensive to the Muslim, and made it a banned object, not allowed to tobe displayed in Jerusalem. Along with this move, he also increased the amount of Jisya to be paid (that is a tax of "protection", paid by non-Muslims, so that the peaceful members of the religion of topic would not kill them) and refused to allow the Christians to instruct others in their faith, not even their own children
I am sure you have noticed nothing, yet, that might cause the Christians to become a bit upset over the treatment of the Dhimmis (people protected from murder at the hands of the Muslims because they submitted to extortion), but it gets even lovelier.
The hands of the Christians and Jews were stamped with an identifying symbol in 772; this was ordered by a guy named al-Mansur, a caliph of the Holy Land area, and over-all grand guy. A few years later, just to make things a little more festive for the silly Christians of the area, a monk was beheaded because he had converted from Islam, and the monastary of St. Theodsius in Bethlehem was plundered. By the way, they killed evenm more monks during the party-filled and loving looting of the joint.
As time went along, the love and tolerance spread about by the peace-loving and goofy-fun guys following Muhammad's doctrines caused Christians to start packing up and moving to Christian cities such as Constantinople by the early years of the ninth century. More persecution, more destruction of churches, until a gala-palooza day on Palm Sunday when the Muslims went on a rampage, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the church of the Resurrection.
You know, I can't understand; with such fun, wild and crazy times like the ones mentioned in the past, how could any stupid Christians decide that maybe it would be high time to think about running those Muslims bacl out of the Holy Lands? Beats me. Maybe I am just a bit on the callous side, I dunno.

The Crusades are the subjects of tons of books, and I have no intention of rewriting books here. I thinkthat is enough info to make one ponder the concept of love and harmony NOT being shown toward the non-Muslims of the region after the Muslims invaded and conquored the Holy Land. By the way, I said invaded and conquored. What does that iomply. If you gather that the land wasn't theirs to begin with, you win the prize!


"The hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering serive to God" John 16:2

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

I am sure that a student of religion understands the concept of Jizya, but for those who do not understand, let me explain. According to Islam, we non-Muslims are afforded oneof three options if Islam is imposed upon an area (that is to say, Sharia is enforced, as has been in the past, upon many people) You can accept the gracious offer of Islam, and become one of the believers. If their faith is not of your liking, you can accept the equally gracious offer of Dhimmah which is protection, and this will cost you a stiff tax, called Jizya. Protection from what, you ask? Why, from those who demand the tax, of course. Now, if you refuse both of these gracious and tolerant offers, there is a third offer that you will be given ,and that is to die. More on that, later.
How could one expect to pay this lovely and tolerant tax? Well, let us look at the words of an-Nawawi, a thirteenth century jurist, "The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector: The collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard and strikes him on both cheeks."
Makes you appreciate the less than hateful way the IRS treats you, huh, Americans? OK, maybe trhere isn't that much difference, but let's drive on, shallwe?
One might say that this is old and antriquated ways, and that it is not one that will be seen again, not since the termination of the Caliphate, right? Well, maybe not so fast with that thought. Not more than a couple -three years ago, at most, Sheikh Marzouq Salem Al-Ghamdi made it clear what the Sharia said about the whole notion of Dhimma and Jizya. This was done at a Friday sermon at a mosque in Mecca, not some little editorial in a rinky-dink local newspaper:

"If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conmditions set out by the Prophet, there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Otehr conditions are rthat they do not renovate a church or monastary, do not rebuild the ones that are destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit that they do not imitate Muslim dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with weapons of any kind, rthat they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voice during prayer, that they shave their hair in the front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim.
If they violate these conditions, they have no protection"

Anyone see the importance of the right to keep and bear arms, now? Considering the way I am balding, the hair part (pardon the pun) will be easy to maintain, but the rest will cause me great anxiety.

This is very clear that the religion ios not one of peace or tolerance, but simply submission.
In the words of an Islamic manual that was certified in 1991 by the highest authority of Sunni Islam, Cairo's Al-Azhar Universitym, "the calip makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax."

Makes war. Not peace, but war. Maybe they mean to love us to death. For some reason, I don't think that is what is meant. By judging the way those Muslims who are both vocal about their beliefs and militant about their ways against the rest of us, I don't think they believe it, either.


I hope the class was enjoyed, and left you enlightened. There will be more classes in the future, but right now, I need to go to bed. I have to keep training helicopters flyable so that the army can train new pilots. Seems the "peace dividend" we were promised at the end of the Cold War went out the window after we started having problems with some folks a bit east of here.
Good night.


[edit on 6-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

The problem isn't with the leader of the religion..it's with the followers!

Looky there! the Steelers won another Super Bowl. Good for them.

Now there's a conspiracy!

Wyrde One, I am glad you are a student of religion. If this be the case, then you will be receptive to a little information.

Always.

You say that Muhammad was a conflicted man. Which was he? Was he a conflicted man, or was he a prophet of Allah?

I'm pretty sure he was the former. The latter is not my department. We need a Pat Robertson type on this thread, somebody with a direct line to the big cheese.

It is pretty obvious how the attitude changed between his time in Mecca and Medina.

His life was pretty harrowing for a while there. The whole thing with the great escape, then the triumphant return. It almost reads like good fiction...

The Muslims conquored the Jeruslaem in 638.

M died several years earlier, right? Here's a good timeline to show just how many different people have claimed Jerusalem. It's like a tarpit. :shk: History Channel

The point should clearly be who was there first, and who has Holy dibs on it.

I don't think so. Depending on how far back you want to go, it becomes an excercise in futility. One group or another could stop the foolishness by simply adandoning their claim and going to greener (literally!) pastures.

Give Jerusalem back to the Jebusites or the Hittites (if you can find some).

After their conquest, the Muslims crucified 60 Christian pilgrims who were coming from Amorium. I'm sure they saw some sick irony in the crucifixion of the Christians, but I imagine that was small comfort to them while they died such a horrible death.

The Muslims weren't the ones who filled Gehenna up. The Syrians and Romans crucified THOUSANDS AT A TIME on several occasions.

Being the student of religion (what a big field to study! I try to learn my own, as well as the one that seems to drive many to kill others, but maybe I am not as intelligent and capable, I dunno)

I'm a student of a lot of things, as we all should be; there's no such thing as knowing enough. I make mistakes, but I'm not full of myself, when I'm wrong I admit it and apologize.

I am sure you have heard of the Muslims governor of Caesarea who grabbed ahold of a bunch of pilgrims from Iconium and had all of them executed, except for a small few who agreed to convert.

Nope, I didn't know that. I had to go look it up. That accounts for another 60 or so lives, right?

Hey; he was a nice and gentle guy, it isn't his fault that all of them didn't chose to convert, right?

No, I'd say he was a murderer.

Regardless, Muslims made a better, more lucrative point of demanding money from pilgrims in return for NOT ransacking the Church of the Resurrection. How polite of these peaceful people, I would say. Wouldn't you agree?

Well, it DOES beat sacking it outright. Extortion is not nice though. :shk: Good thing all muslims don't do this, eh?

It got even worse, later in the eighth century...

Indeed, it got worse, and a little better, then worse again, and so on. It's still going on, the ebb and flow. What are the fluctuations due to? Why, individuals of course! We can't very well blame all Germans for what Hitler did 60 years ago, can we?

Christianity can be abused in like fashion, and has been all throughout history, in EXACTLY the same fashion. Sometimes it's not so bad, sometimes it's heinous, but it's never been the same since the death of the guy that started it. :shk:

You know, I can't understand; with such fun, wild and crazy times like the ones mentioned in the past, how could any stupid Christians decide that maybe it would be high time to think about running those Muslims bacl out of the Holy Lands? Beats me. Maybe I am just a bit on the callous side, I dunno.

Check this out - an account of Urban's speech.

gbgm-umc.org...

"The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land.

"The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war.

"God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!

Sounds EXACTLY like the rhetoric used by the other side, doesn't it?

And let's talk about violence against innocents, shall we?

en.wikipedia.org...

The First Crusade ignited a long tradition of organized violence against Jews in European culture. While anti-Semitism had existed in Europe for centuries, the First Crusade marks the first mass organized violence against Jewish communities. Setting off in the early summer of 1096, a German army of around 10,000 soldiers led by Gottschalk, Volkmar, and Emicho, proceeded northward through the Rhine valley, in the opposite direction to Jerusalem, began a series of pogroms which some historians call "the first Holocaust" (1991, Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg. 50).

The preaching of the crusade inspired further anti-Semitism. According to some preachers, Jews and Muslims were enemies of Christ, and enemies were to be fought or converted to Christianity. The general public apparently assumed that "fought" meant "fought to the death", or "killed". The Christian conquest of Jerusalem and the establishment of a Christian emperor there would supposedly instigate the End Times, during which the Jews were supposed to convert to Christianity. In parts of France and Germany, Jews were perceived as just as much of an enemy as Muslims: they were thought to be responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the far-away Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home.

The crusaders moved north through the Rhine valley into well-known Jewish communities such as Cologne, and then southward. Jewish communities were given the option of converting to Christianity or be slaughtered. Most would not convert and as news of the mass killings spread many Jewish communities committed mass suicides in horrific scenes. Thousands of Jews were massacred, despite some attempts by local clergy and secular authorities to shelter them. The massacres were justified by the claim that Urban's speech at Clermont promised reward from God for killing non-Christians of any sort, not just Muslims. Although the papacy abhorred and preached against the purging of Muslim and Jewish inhabitants during this and future crusades, there were numerous attacks on Jews following every crusade movement.

The Muslims were not the innocent victims of the Crusades, and neither were the Christians.

I think the innocent ones were the unaffiliated people caught in between two insane mobs of extremists fighting to the death.

Here's a pretty good general resource for information on the period. I think it's decent anyway.

www.fordham.edu...

[edit on 6-2-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Islam in itself does not promote violence. But it does open itself up to be interpreted that way by people who are pre disposed to violence, like any influence.

But Islam (all religion) is a great deal more powerful of an influence than other things that one experiences. So people who have violent tendencies, or are more susceptible to influence, tend to take the parts of the religion that speak of violence to an extreme that may result violence. The Quran is filled with passages designed with the sole purpose of implanting fear into its readers of not having faith with the threat of violence for insolence. That’s a powerful message to the passionate or weak minded.

If you have ever read the Quran (and everybody should), it is full of violent passages and ideas (just like the Bible). Don’t take my word for it, read it for your self.

Violent passages in a book do not make one violent. And violent passages in a book of warship does not necessarily make on violent. But people who tend to be extreme believers in religion also tend to be very passionate about that belief. I’m not saying all passionate people are violent or will become violent, but find me one violent person who is not passionate about their belief!

So, to summarize my first point we have a book that is the backbone of a religion that has intolerance of other faiths and speaks of violence to protect the faith. Combine a text of this nature and the power of religious belief and you are bound to manufacture some violent followers of that faith.

My second point is the overall intolerance of Islam. I know this is a sweeping generalization, but it’s simply true, the Quran very clearly promotes this (read it!). Islam is tolerant of no other faiths. And more Importantly Islam is not tolerant of criticism in any way shape or form. Non Muslims are not permitted to speak of the faith. Actually, non Muslims (non believers) are actually not to be trusted and even killed if deemed necessary. Did you know Muslim law has no punishment for Muslims who kill non believers? It’s not a sin, this is fact. Non Muslims are sub human and irrelevant; if they cannot be converted they are to be killed.

Now, don’t get me wrong: Most Muslims don’t act on or openly promote these messages from the Quran. These are your “moderate” or typical Muslims. But the people of a lesser mind, easily influenced, or have a violence disposition act on this mandate of intolerance resulting in things like murder, riots and out right terrorism.

Look at the riots in the streets over cartoons depicting Muhammad. It is forbidden to create a likeness of the prophet. Some non Muslims, people who are not bound by that law of Islam, created cartoons that offend Muslims. Not because of their messages, but because of their very existence. Even positive images of Muhammad are not permitted. This as we all know has resulted in world wide protests and riots. Somebody has actually been killed over this in Afghanistan.

So what do we have? We have a situation where a religion that has violent passages (just like the Bible) in its main book of warship, and a law of absolute intolerance of other faith and mindsets. For most Muslims this is OK as they are intelligent and mindful of other views and beliefs on their own. They understand that people of different cultures may not share the same belief. But some people of Islam aren’t as open and allow the laws of the faith rule their actions and most importantly their passions. And this leads to violence. And as we all have learned, extreme violence.

Other religions are capable of producing violent believers of course. But Islam seems to create more people who are willing to act on their beliefs. My personal opinion is that it’s the fear of Allah written in the Quran combined with the absolute intolerance of other faiths that fuels this.

My short answer:
Islam is not a religion of violence for most Muslims. But violent elements of the faith seem to have a greater effect on the weak and overly passionate than other religions and faiths. Islam seems to create more radicals willing to act on their beliefs than other religions. “Act” is the key word here, there aren’t more radicals in Islam (I don’t know this either way) than other faiths, just more driven to action. And passionate action based on a belief of faith almost always leads to violence.

I can’t remember where I have stated this before, but its relevant to this thread:

Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, or Hindu terrorists don’t keep me up at night, but Muslim ones do. Why? Because I know more people personally that have been affected by Islamic extremists than any other kind, and until that changes my fears are justified. (note I didn’t say “Muslims” keep me up at night, I said Muslim “terrorists” do)




[edit on 6-2-2006 by skippytjc]