Is the Religion of Islam intolerant?

Ya know.. it can be argued that some Muslims can lie and deceive in accordance with how they interpret the Quran, but I think it's more fair to say if there is any intolerance it is not the religion of Islam itself, but some individuals within that religion.

Just like all Christians do not place emphasis on all parts of the Bible, all Muslims don't emphasize the same parts of the Quran. You have to believe there are people, Muslims who honestly would not hurt a fly and they don't adhere to those beliefs, yet there are others that buy into the Lets go Kill all our Enemies in the name of Allah ideology. Is it fair to blame the religion itself for this? The religion is really just stories in a book, it's what individuals do with this knowledge that makes the difference.

This is my attempt at being tolerant. At one point, i would have said they were all deceivers and should be nuked.I can't believe that anymore knowing there are a huge amount of Muslims from all walks of life that were not around those negative influences. Think of people like Karem Abdul Jabar or Tom Holland.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


What you say is just not true. Maybe you missed my previous post.
If one is to engulf all the teachings in that text of violence to unbelievers then one will be violent to unbelievers and not understanding that is just pacifying the truth until a time when you or your children succumb to alluh.

One should not point out another religion in order to see the truth of another religion.
I do not hate you and that does not depend on if you hate me or not.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

yet there are others that buy into the Lets go Kill all our Enemies in the name of Allah ideology. Is it fair to blame the religion itself for this? The religion is really just stories in a book, it's what individuals do with this knowledge that makes the difference.

This is my attempt at being tolerant. At one point, i would have said they were all deceivers and should be nuked.I can't believe that anymore knowing there are a huge amount of Muslims from all walks of life that were not around those negative influences.

A religion is a series of memes or ideas not in a book but in peoples minds.
When those ideas legitimize the killing of non believers it is fair to blame the religion.
Naziism taught the killing of non aryans. It is fair to label it as a political terrorist pagan death cult.

Islam teaches war with the infidels. Islam has made war on non believers for 1400 years killing
300 million. There have been 20000 terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Lets pray ATS does not support Islams war of terror on the world.

Question:

Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?


Summary Answer:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's many calls to violence according to what their own moral preconceptions find justificable. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.


The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.



Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."



Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.



Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."



Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad

reply to post by neoholographic


No. I would say no. The religion of Islam is not intolerant. Sure there are some intolerant people within the Islamic religion,but you will find such people in every religion, culture, gender, sexual orientation, handicap etc....

I think the Islamic religion or any other religion is what any one person decides to make of it. There are wonderful messages of peace to be found within each religion. There are quotes from each religious text that are wide open to interpretation....

The religion is not intolerant. It is a belief system. And it is only as tolerant or intolerant as the individual makes it.

This is coming from a person who is agnostic at best, atheist at worst.

The NRA's slogan is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Korans don't kill people, people kill people.

However, the flaw to the NRA slogan is that guns, unlike other objects like art history textbooks, are more inherently dangerous in nature. You give a thousand idiots loaded guns, more harm will come about than than if you give a thousand idiots art history textbooks.

Perhaps the question should not be whether Islam is inherently more dangerous than other schools of thought. Just as plenty of good people own guns and never harm anybody, there are plenty of good Muslims out there that never harmed anybody. However, is there a greater potential for Islam to be perverted or distorted in a manner which leads to harm? Is a Koran more like a gun than an art history textbook?

I would have to say yes and the empirical data is overwhelming. I never heard of art historians taking out skyscrapers and blowing themselves up.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Blaming guns for deaths from guns is like blaming a pencil for spelling mistakes. I'm not positive, but I think people were murdering each other before gunpowder was invented. Wild guess of course.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Bluesma

 

No I wasn't offended, I was just saying my response to your previous was the same as before. I also wanted to point out that the persecution from the Catholics was the worst in the history of the world. More Christians were killed in one day than were during 300 years of persecution by the Caesars.

Yep. When a religion goes into conquer and spread mode, it is bound to be bloody and violent.
Islam isn't going to to do it in a way that is any less violent! And like the Christians rise, the branches which are not focusing on the aggressive, imperialistic values will be assulted just as violently as non-Islamics.

The tolerant and peaceful Islam will be killed off or pressured to join the Intolerant Islam.
You don't take over a world by being peaceful and tolerant. The physical world doesn't work that way.

reply to post by neoholographic



as far as i know:
1.No, he married her at 9 , but consummated the marriage with her when she was around 13.
It was only her,no other young girls, and if you research back then in those times it was common practice, to marry at this age to bind tribes together and make peace with warring factions.Not only in the land of arabia, but in europe and asia as well.
2. No, that is not true as far as i know or heard.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

I was curious about something you wrote:

No I wasn't offended, I was just saying my response to your previous was the same as before. I also wanted to point out that the persecution from the Catholics was the worst in the history of the world. More Christians were killed in one day than were during 300 years of persecution by the Caesars.

I don't think you're talking about the Inquisition. I've checked three sources and they all say that over the 500 years of the Inquisition there were 3-5,000 killed.

So what did you have in mind? Or are my sources in error?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by rhazer
reply to post by neoholographic

 

as far as i know:
1.No, he married her at 9 , but consummated the marriage with her when she was around 13.
It was only her,no other young girls, and if you research back then in those times it was common practice, to marry at this age to bind tribes together and make peace with warring factions.Not only in the land of arabia, but in europe and asia as well.
2. No, that is not true as far as i know or heard.

Thats one theory based on interpretation. Another is he married her at 6 and had sex with her at 9. There are sound reasons to interpret the situation this way.

Aishah. His famous and infamous child bride. She was the daughter of his good friend and co-worker Abu Bakr (later the first caliph). The connection was established in 623 AD, when she was just 6 years old – and he 53 (or 54) – 47 (or 48) years older than her, though married life – sex – did not start until 3 years later, when she was 9. Many react against his marrying a child and having sex with a 9-year-old (the reason why many Muslims accept child marriage and sex from the girl is 9). But the really black spot is not that he had sex with a 9 year old girl. The really black spot is that he had a child as his favourite wife all through her childhood – she was just 15 when he died. (Some Muslims claim sex did not start until she was 17 – but by then Muhammad had been dead for 2 years if the times are correct).

1000mistakes.com...

Even Muslim scholars place her age at 6 years old for marriage.

Sahih Bukhari

Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234

Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151

Sahih Muslim

Chapter 10: IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE FATHER TO GIVE THE HAND OF HIS DAUGHTER IN MARRIAGE EVEN WHEN SHE IS NOT FULLY GROWN UP.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him. Book 8, Number 3309.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Book 8, Number 3310

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Book 8, Number 3311
www.muhammadanism.com... There are more examples of these from Muslims themselves, at the link.

edit on 25-9-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Dear NOTurTypical,

I was curious about something you wrote:

No I wasn't offended, I was just saying my response to your previous was the same as before. I also wanted to point out that the persecution from the Catholics was the worst in the history of the world. More Christians were killed in one day than were during 300 years of persecution by the Caesars.

I don't think you're talking about the Inquisition. I've checked three sources and they all say that over the 500 years of the Inquisition there were 3-5,000 killed.

So what did you have in mind? Or are my sources in error?

It seems likely to me, that he is referring to those who were massacred at the start of the Albigensian Crusade, which is estimated to be around 15,000. Although the Alibigensian Crusade was not part of the inquisition as such, it was established in order to make 'quick work' of what the inquisition had failed to do, so can be seen as supportive of church policy at that time against 'heretics'. Following the massacre, at the 4th Lateran Council, the power of the inquisition was re-enforced and the procedure established which ensured the participation, and enforcement, of the civil authorities. It is also worth considering, that while the official death toll of the inquisition is in the region of 3,500, that is only those that were sentenced to death, and does not include those that although sentenced to confiscation were then murdered according to mob rule. The church did not, except in the severest cases, approve of the death penalty for heretics, but the mob lust for blood often over-ruled that stance, such as in the case of Cambrai, which resulted in the Church excommunicating the entire town population when it seized a suspected heretic and burnt him to death.

Originally posted by neoholographic
I'm asking because I don't know much about the Qur'an.

Is this just a case of misreading scripture like the Catholics and the Crusades? Or, is intolerance inherent in the Qur'an?

The Crusaders themselves were offered absolution if they took part in the Crusades, that and a potential share in the booty. That is pretty much the same message, if we are to take reports at face value, that the Islamic fighters are being offered, even if that booty is only promised in the afterlife. Either way, considering that Mohammed based the creation of his belief system on fifth century Christianity, by which time the original and simple message that Jesus had attempted to impart had already been corrupted into a system of gross intolerance, then it is little wonder that Islam commenced on a similar footing.

However, it should also be taken into consideration that at that time, when the Arabian tribes were united under Islam that they brought much positive change to the world, including the West and allowed the reopening of trade routes that had contracted following the fall of the Roman Empire. Those routes allowed for the communication of ideas and technology, and their free and open exchange. The unification of the Arab peoples and the resultant increase in trade and commerce is what brought the west out of the dark ages, and allowed it's economic and intellectual recovery. It was not until the Arab leadership were usurped by the Turks that the Islamic empire became oppressive and prevented free transit of all peoples, in trade and in pilgrimage, that the Crusades were considered a necessity.

Islam, therefore, at the time of it's founding, can be seen as a return to 'source', and as the new bearers of the simple message...but as with the Jews and the Christians, that message has become corrupted over time.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You are right, a gun is not a necessary element for a death just as a pencil is not a necessary element for a spelling mistake. Guns do, however, facilitate deaths when they fall in the wrong hands in a way other objects like sticks, knives, and rocks cannot.

Some wacko with an automatic weapon could easily go into a crowd of people and kill and/or wound a couple dozen of them. The same wacko could not inflict the same type of damage if he went into a crowd of people with a stick or a knife.

Which brings us back to Islam. Is Islam like a gun in that it is more likely than a stick to cause harm if it if falls into the wrong hands. Or is Islam like a pencil in that it is less likely to cause harm if it falls into the wrong hands.

reply to post by Biliverdin

Dear Biliverdin.

Thank you very much, that was wonderful. I didn't know about the Albigensian Crusade, and I'm really pleased you led me to it. ATS "Star of the Day." That's why I'm here. I appreciate the lesson.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thank you! And always glad to be of service.

It is a very interesting moment in history, and can be viewed in the same light as the persecution of the Knights Templar, because although it was essentially a Crusade against the Cathars, on a socio-economic level, it was utilised by the King of France to gain political control of Southern France.

Personally atleast, I think the criticism of Islam comes as a result of it being an, in a way, an intrusive religion on western society in a sense due to its deep conservatism in how its rules cant be adjusted and how its intertwined with cultures that have moved over to the US, UK etc.

As a result most people view its scripture with either conscious/unconscious skepticism, as you do with anything you know little about and doesnt align with anything much in your life so far.

Islam is actually one of the most tolerant religions, having a muslim girlfriend from whom ive gained a lot of info from, which i feel so ignorant before in comparison to how much i know about it now. Listen, theyre actually one of the most tolerant religions you will find, perhaps the most, atleast tied in terms of scripture with christianitys new testament. Their Imams preach decency and oneness as a species not a "our religion against theirs".

The reason its bashed as a religion falls into two main areas. Cultures attached to it, and the non integratability of these people with western culture (building a secrecy air) and also a lack of in depth knowledge and reliance on islamophobic knowledge spread by people whove been influenced by the first point, skeptics of it, whove also been further outraged by the news, suicide bombings etc in islam dominant countries. Having a, in my opinion through my girlfriend and my own interest in the religion, ive found its the most tolerant (Scientifically and value wise, it encorages scientific advancement and intellectual development not against it). It shouldnt be judged based on the actions of some first generation immigrants, terrorists and the few dodgy ayotollahs in countries such as Saudi arabia. A lot of muslims are more against all of these things, more so than you id bet.

neoholographic
I'm asking because I don't know much about the Qur'an.

Is this just a case of misreading scripture like the Catholics and the Crusades? Or, is intolerance inherent in the Qur'an?

For instance, Jesus never forced anyone to follow him, so there wasn't any justification for the Crusades in Scripture. The rich man didn't follow Jesus and he didn't get struck by lightening or beheaded because he didn't follow Christ. Paul would preach the Gospel and some would follow and some wouldn't.

Is there intolerance in the Qur'an for those who are not Muslim or are the extremist doing what Catholics did in the Crusades and their using the religion as a reason to shed blood.

I don't know that much about the Quran however this NY's my gf and I have to practicing Muslims staying with us here in Oz. Lovely people I'm just a bit put out because they have asked us to not have any pork or ham in our fridge. Xmas in Oz typically for me always has plenty of pork, a big Xmas ham and over the holidays frequently will have bacon and eggs for breakfast. I respect their right to practice their religion however what about my rights as a Catholic living in a predominantly Christian country. Thought I might get other peoples thoughts?

neoholographic
Is the Religion of Islam intolerant?

No. People are intolerant.

If your yardstick is tolerance (or the lack thereof rather) when making a comparative analysis of the current Big Three (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), it all comes out a wash. Considering that you are looking at three direct lines of decent in terms of mythology, ideology and to a point, dogma, no wonder really. Intolerance was written into the Torah as an reactionary effort to maintain the Israelite culture, and it just carried right on through; often to a similar purpose.

If you want a doctrine of tolerance, look into Buddhism. Not perfect, but about as close as you'll get.