Does İslam really promote violence?

[Contarini]

The King of Saudi Arabia might be a good start. The Saudi Grand Mufti. The Grand Mufti of Egypt. Grand Ayatollah Khamanei of Iran. The point is that until the Muslim world itself rises up against these barbarian extremists, the whole Muslim world, rightly or wrongly, will be lumped in together with the extremists.

The Grand Mufti of Egypt, representing the Sunni establishment, has indeed spoken out. Why couldn’t you have done a simple Google search and discovered this for yourself?

The Saudis are more culpable–they export Wahhabi Islam, which is a radical fundamentalist version, and may have played some role in the rise of ISIS, though ISIS in the end is no one’s friend but its own and by one report I read is planning to start revolutionary cells in Saudi Arabia.

Iran is no friend to ISIS or the other Sunni terrorist groups. But both Iran and Saudi Arabia are governments dominated by a radical, fundamentalist version of Islam, although not as extreme as groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. The more moderate establishment institutions such as al-Azhar in Egypt do condemn the radicals over and over, but Westerners who are prejudiced against Islam ignore them, as you very culpably did in your last post.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps if the book wasn’t so vague and open to interpretation this wouldn’t happen so much.

This is pretty rich coming from a Christian

Fact is, the Jizya is being enforced as it should be.

And you are an expert in Islamic law how?

As I understand it, Islamic law does not specify the amount of the Jizya. But since it is presented as an alternative to expulsion, conversion, or death, it would make sense that it should be a real alternative–i.e., a sum that people could reasonably pay. Historically it was usually negotiated, I believe.

Why should they as Muslims ignore an obvious command in their scripture?

Straw man. There are Muslims who argue for rejecting the jizya outright as a reality suited only to former times. More often they see it as symbolic or stress that it is the equivalent of taxes paid by Muslims (not in addition to regular taxation, in other words) and is a matter of negotiation between Muslims and non-Muslims. (I’ve just been reading Jac

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

God is our central authority-- and he sent down His guidance down in the Qur’an and its practical example through the sunnah. It’s real simple, men just try to make it difficult (not talking about you here, but of people in general). There are many muslims who make it difficult, frankly.

I have heard this claim too often from fundamentalist Christians to take it very seriously. But perhaps Islam is indeed a more “fundamentalist-friendly” religion than Christianity. If so, that would not at all be a good thing.

If you think that God has given you simple instructions, then you don’t have the right understanding of God. The true God works through mystery and paradox. Always.

Edwin

 

[drac16]

So would you say Turkey and Egypt are incorrect for not imposing a Jizya on Christians as Surah 9:29 says? ISIS is calling for a tax on Christians, so perhaps they got that right but don’t understand how it’s supposed to work exactly?

Or do you not take Surah 9:29 completely seriously?

I’m not familiar with Egypt and Turkey’s policies. The jizya tax, from what I understand of surah 9, is a tax that’s incumbent on everyone of a given state that is not a muslim. The jizya is not incumbent on muslims, but on the other hand, protection of the community is incumbent on the muslims (and you can see an example of that in the covenant prophet Muhammad made with his covenant with the jews of Yathrib). In other words, the non-muslims are not obligated to participate in wars or conflicts where force is required.

So if you and I are in a place that’s ruled by the Shariah and our community is attacked by a bunch of bandits, it’s my duty and every other muslim’s duty to protect you and everything else (by whatever means is appropriate…it depends on the context). ISIS has no basis for calling itself an Islamic state in the first place, so they probably jack up the price of jizya to a point that’s unmanageable, especially for those who, under the prescriptions of Shariah, are to be protected, like women, children, monks/priests, disabled people, poor people, etc.

Of course I take surah 9:29 seriously, but it should be understood in light of the first 28 verses and the circumstances under which it was revealed to Muhammad [peace be upon him]. So if the governments of Turkey and Egypt are prescribing the jizya tax in obediance to the way Muhammad himself did it, which was a way to boost the economy while making exceptions for various persons, then I approve. If they’re enforcing what they claim is jizya tax and is all about filling the governments pockets while people in their backyard starve, then of course, I oppose them.

That’s what the Saudi Government does. All they seem to care about is milking their citizens, both muslims and non-muslims, of money and wasting those tax dollars to build things that aren’t needed. They just built a massive clocktower in the middle of Mecca, which costs who-knows-what. No one was asking for it, nor was it needed because we have these handy things called watches to help us tell time.

 

[drac16]

I have heard this claim too often from fundamentalist Christians to take it very seriously. But perhaps Islam is indeed a more “fundamentalist-friendly” religion than Christianity. If so, that would not at all be a good thing.

If you think that God has given you simple instructions, then you don’t have the right understanding of God. The true God works through mystery and paradox. Always.

Edwin

I’m not terribly concerned about what you’d consider a fundamentalist or fundamentalism. Besides, those labels don’t have much of a meaning nowadays. I believe the Qur’an is sufficient in its clarity and that it doesn’t need clergy to tell me what it means (like Sheikh Nazim, Ibn al-Arabi and other guys). It can certainly help to seek out guidance by wise saints throughout the ages, but it’s not mandatory. Allah has done it that way on purpose.

 

[dronald]

This is pretty rich coming from a Christian

Why? Islam can stand on its own can it not? Would I have a better point if I was an Atheist?

Muslims have no idea what John the Baptist truly did, nor what Jesus truly taught and how He died or disappeared nor how to interpret Surah 9:29.

And you are an expert in Islamic law how?

Nope, but the Qur’an is supposed to be “Easy to understand/remember.” And yet no one understands it; especially the rough parts.

As I understand it, Islamic law does not specify the amount of the Jizya. But since it is presented as an alternative to expulsion, conversion, or death, it would make sense that it should be a real alternative–i.e., a sum that people could reasonably pay. Historically it was usually negotiated, I believe.

Exactly. ISIS is teaching conversion, expulsion, or pay the Jizya.

Straw man. There are Muslims who argue for rejecting the jizya outright as a reality suited only to former times. More often they see it as symbolic or stress that it is the equivalent of taxes paid by Muslims (not in addition to regular taxation, in other words) and is a matter of negotiation between Muslims and non-Muslims. (I’ve just been reading Jac

Edwin

The Qur’an is a book for all people of all time. If Muslims reject the words within then that’s fine by me. Too bad more don’t.

 

[dronald]

I’m not familiar with Egypt and Turkey’s policies. The jizya tax, from what I understand of surah 9, is a tax that’s incumbent on everyone of a given state that is not a muslim. The jizya is not incumbent on muslims, but on the other hand, protection of the community is incumbent on the muslims (and you can see an example of that in the covenant prophet Muhammad made with his covenant with the jews of Yathrib). In other words, the non-muslims are not obligated to participate in wars or conflicts where force is required.

So if you and I are in a place that’s ruled by the Shariah and our community is attacked by a bunch of bandits, it’s my duty and every other muslim’s duty to protect you and everything else (by whatever means is appropriate…it depends on the context). ISIS has no basis for calling itself an Islamic state in the first place, so they probably jack up the price of jizya to a point that’s unmanageable, especially for those who, under the prescriptions of Shariah, are to be protected, like women, children, monks/priests, disabled people, poor people, etc.

Of course I take surah 9:29 seriously, but it should be understood in light of the first 28 verses and the circumstances under which it was revealed to Muhammad [peace be upon him]. So if the governments of Turkey and Egypt are prescribing the jizya tax in obediance to the way Muhammad himself did it, which was a way to boost the economy while making exceptions for various persons, then I approve. If they’re enforcing what they claim is jizya tax and is all about filling the governments pockets while people in their backyard starve, then of course, I oppose them.

That’s what the Saudi Government does. All they seem to care about is milking their citizens, both muslims and non-muslims, of money and wasting those tax dollars to build things that aren’t needed. They just built a massive clocktower in the middle of Mecca, which costs who-knows-what. No one was asking for it, nor was it needed because we have these handy things called watches to help us tell time.

Good response. But I see nothing in light of the other 28 verses that would help me better interpret 29. Can you explain what I’m missing?

And as far as protection goes, why can’t Muslims and Christians work hand in hand to defend themselves? Why a special tax against Christians as if they’re different?

Isn’t discrimination based on Religion a bad thing? Why fight us until we pay?

 

[Contarini]

Why? Islam can stand on its own can it not? Would I have a better point if I was an Atheist?

You would still be wrong. But if you took the approach “all supposed holy books are confusing and so don’t come from God” you would be coherently wrong.

There are far wider divergences among communities accepting the Bible as authoritative than among communities accepting the Qur’an. When you make an argument that disproves your own religion, you have a problem.

Nope, but the Qur’an is supposed to be “Easy to understand/remember.” And yet no one understands it; especially the rough parts.

Certainly I find the people who say the Qur’an is easy just as unconvincing as the people who say the Bible is easy. Or almost.

Exactly. ISIS is teaching conversion, expulsion, or pay the Jizya.

And I have nowhere suggested that they are violating the letter of Islamic law in this policy (though if they are really killing women and children, that does violate Islamic law).

The Qur’an is a book for all people of all time. If Muslims reject the words within then that’s fine by me.

You don’t get to tell them what the rules are for interpreting their holy book.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m not terribly concerned about what you’d consider a fundamentalist or fundamentalism. Besides, those labels don’t have much of a meaning nowadays. I believe the Qur’an is sufficient in its clarity and that it doesn’t need clergy to tell me what it means (like Sheikh Nazim, Ibn al-Arabi and other guys). It can certainly help to seek out guidance by wise saints throughout the ages, but it’s not mandatory. Allah has done it that way on purpose.

I don’t expect you to care what I think

I’m just putting you on notice that I find your claim unconvincing, and if it were true that would be a point against Islam, not for it, in my opinion.

Back to the context: you were responding to the challenge “where is the central authority?” Your response “God is our central authority” isn’t reassuring to us. You don’t have to care what we think, but you need to understand that many of us hear the words “God is our central authority and he has given us clear instructions” as pretty ominous, and they don’t do anything to alleviate concerns we have about Islam.

Edwin

 

[dronald]

You would still be wrong. But if you took the approach “all supposed holy books are confusing and so don’t come from God” you would be coherently wrong.

There are far wider divergences among communities accepting the Bible as authoritative than among communities accepting the Qur’an. When you make an argument that disproves your own religion, you have a problem.

This doesn’t concern me. When I discuss Islam I would like to see how Muslims explain their Religion. If they have to use mine as an analogy while simultaneously saying mine is false, I lose respect for said argument.

If a Muslim objects to the interpretations of Christian Scripture I will defend accordingly. I will not however say “Islam has many interpretations too” as a defense. I may ask what a Muslim has to say about said objection as well, but I believe Christianity can stand on its own.

So in a topic about Islam let’s keep it about Islam.

And I have nowhere suggested that they are violating the letter of Islamic law in this policy (though if they are really killing women and children, that does violate Islamic law).

You may find this article of interest:

thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-is-isis-beheading-children-in-iraq

I’m sure as you know, women can be “possessed by the right hand” in Islamic warfare. Which ISIS takes no issues with.

You don’t get to tell them what the rules are for interpreting their holy book.

Edwin

Sometimes I just copy and paste the Qur’an, or I’ll put it in my own words.

Fight them until they pay the Jizya; it’s what Islam teaches. As a Christian with reading comprehension I have every right to say that.

 

[Petaro]

The violence ?

A certain cynicism should be found in my rhetorical question. Islam has a history of violence stretching back to the “Prophet”. If it were not for Prince Ferdinand at the battle of Le Panto in the 1700s, the west of Europe would have been enslaved. The world is full of Muslim extremist violence and the “moderate” Muslims remain silent, whilst making demands for their “rights” in every community they gain a demographic influence. Look at Islamic Paris. And we debate in blogs whilst the West is in an existential struggle it does not even recognise. The violence? You have seen nothing yet.

 

[SteveVH]

From the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, i.e. Pope Francis:

*"The dramatic plight of Christians, Yezidis and other religious communities and ethnic minorities in Iraq requires a clear and courageous stance on the part of religious leaders, especially Muslims, as well as those engaged in interreligious dialogue and all people of good will. All must be unanimous in condemning unequivocally these crimes and in denouncing the use of religion to justify them.

If not, what credibility will religions, their followers and their leaders have? What credibility can the interreligious dialogue that we have patiently pursued over recent years have?"*

(Bold mine)

Where is the voice of the Muslims in condemnation of this genocide?

It is difficult for me to even watch the news, and I am a news junkie. I have two grandchildren and when I imagine someone cutting off their heads or tearing their little bodies in half it is more than I can take. This is happening as we speak to someone’s child, grandchild, brother, sister, not to mention the other unimaginable atrocities committed by these demons. Satan is alive and well and these people are doing his bidding.

 

[po18guy]

How would he have tested the spirit?

The first letter of John gives such advice. Saint Padre Pio was visited by spirits. He demanded them to bow and worship God before he would hear them. Demons cannot, or will not do this.

 

[Kaninchen]

Perhaps the problem lies in the culture shock when Islamic societies discovered that they were pretty helpless in the face of what happened in the West through the arrival and progress of the Industrial Revolution, when proud societies became spectators at best and servants at worst.

Thus the reactionary theoreticians of Islamism, people like Sayyid Qutb and Abul Ala Maududi developed a worldview where the fault for virtually everything bad that happened in Muslim world lay in the ungodly actions and behaviour of outsiders and the failure of Muslims to stick to a truly Islamic view and the only way of dealing with this was a vanguard of true believers to sort out naughty Muslims and then deal with everybody else.

In other words, the only true position for a Muslim to take, faced by the success and ideology of non-Islamic ways and thought was to return far into a supposed Islamic past. It’s not a question, therefore, of whether Islam promotes violence, it’s that the people who regard themselves as the vanguard of defenders of Islam have embraced a version of the old ‘World Power Or Downfall’ thinking that Europe was plagued with until the fall of the Reich and later the fall of the USSR.

When you take aspects of our history, like the Reich and USSR, what’s clear isn’t so much that they were evidence of the failure of Western thought but that it’s possible to pick and mix your way through all sorts of ideas and end up with the solution you want. I’d suggest that Islamism is like that, it’s not that Islam is intrinsically anything, it’s that when you start with the ‘answer’, the only problem is developing the ‘correct’ questions.

 

[hasantas]

Who determines what “true Islam” is? There is no central authority to enforce orthodoxy. Therefore, any group - be it radical or moderate - can claim to be the “true Islam”. Because there is no central authority, who is to say that the violent Islam of al-Qaeda, ISIS, or Hamas, isn’t the “true Islam”? After all, Mohammed himself certainly wasn’t a pacifist.

There may be allways some immoderate groups and movements in any religion or in a thought as conception. Most part of Muslims allways went/go on a straight way. Quran and The Sunna is authority for İslam and there is no need for annything else. As ı stated most of Muslims go on that order.

That groups have some intents legal or illegal. That groups do not struggle for İslam but they use name of İslam for their aims. I don’t know if that goups convert anyone to İslam and the real aim of Jihad is to bring someone to faith.

1. Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.( Quran: al-Baqarah:256)

As Allah mention in Quran İslam does not force others to be İslam. İslam convey and notify faith but never force anyone to believe in İslam. Muhammed (pbuh) make many treaty instead war if it was possible.

 

[hasantas]

Are you Turkish? I ask because of those cool "I"s with the dots on the top.

I have no opinion on the violence of the Moslem religion/faith/doctrine. I believe it to be false on a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence.

One, it would seem Moslems believe Moses, Elijah, and the other prophets to be Arab. This, of course, is nonsense, given the Jews existed separately from the Arabs for centuries, long before Mohammed was a twinkle in his momma’s eye.

Of course, I do wonder, do Moslems believe the Jewish people were Arab? It does seem crazy to me, and I don’t remember where I heard it.

.

I am from Turkey.

Moses, Jesus and most other prophets descend from Isaac(then Jacob) son of Abraham. Arabs descend from Ishmael other son of Abraham. Mothers of Ishmael and Isaac are different.

Jewish prophets were not Arab but the originality and nature of their believe and religions were Islam. You may interfuse that.

 

[GaryTaylor]

the ‘answer’, the only problem is developing the ‘correct’ questions.

Exactly.

 

[hasantas]

For a third, someone brought up an interesting point about the angel who visited Mohammed. That was Gabriel, no? Now, when an angel or messenger of God comes, God strikes an awe into him. But not fear or terror. On the contrary, when Gabriel visited Mary, he said, “Fear not”, according to the contemporary author Luke.

As I understand it, however, Mohammed was terrified of whatever visited him in that cave - with no comfort. I doubt it was Gabriel who visited Mohammed due to the very contrast in nature between what visited Mohammed and what visited Mary.

.

Did Gabriel come to Muhammed ony once in a cave? That was the first time and Gabriel had went on coming untill depart of Muhammed. For the first time seeing an angel is a bit frightening as Mary got fear and it was told to not fear. The same thing is valid for Muhammed. After that Muhammed and Gabriel were friend and they were used to read Quran each other. Gabriel showed and tought Muhammed about worships of Islam. Look at Quran then decide if Quran is word of God or a devil.

 

[hasantas]

For another, that the revelation of Mohammed supersedes that of the Jewish and Christian claims - ie, the Tanakh, and the New Testament. The problem with this is: the Koran did not even exist until 500 years after Christ had lived, died, and rose again. Christianity was already 500 years old by the time Mohammed had his vision. It is exactly the same problem as we have with Joseph Smith’s “Book of Mormon”. Smith claimed he got that from an angel, too. But Christianity had already been around for 1800 years. So where did Christianity, or Judaism, jump the track? Where are the Arab prophets? I see only one: Mohammed. Where are the polytheists Smith spoke of? I saw only one: him.

For these reasons especially - in short, because Islam is not historically consistent - Islam is not true, as far as I can tell.

There have been about 124000 prophets. First prophet were Adam and the last were Muhammed. As I told Jewish prophets and Muhammed descend from Abraham. There have been allways false prophets even in Islam too. We must test their claims. I do not know much about Joseph Smith but as much I know he did not claim to get a new revelation. He claimed to find some plates with help of an angel which belong to other prophets. There is no any original revelation relate to him.

In Gospels and Torah in some verses it is told that a prophet will come. All attribution of that prophet show Muhammed. Muhammed has revelation, miracles and all other attributions a prophet must hold. Even some rabbis and pastors have seen that remarks on Muhammed and confirmed his prophethood.

Islam is the last true religion of Allah. Yes Islam supersedes other religion because Islam hold all the essentials of Jewish and Christianity. Islam does not deny them but attract notice that these true religion have been changed and got away from their foundation. And Islam suggest to reconcile on a common point that: There is only one God and scriptures, angels, Heavens, prophets are right and correct. But by time everyone interpret those in different ways and it seems difficult to find a common point. Because everyone think they are the only true. God is all our Allah.

 

[clintonm]

Please provide chapter and verse where the Gospels announce the coming of another prophet.