T
TheProphet
Guest
To You Your Religion To Me Mine.
- Status
T
TheProphet
Guest
From the history and present situation, it’s proven that Islam stays to be the most peacful and tolerants religion. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was promoting peace during his lifetime and is considered to be the most influential figure.
P
Pythagoras
Guest
Well it depends on the muslim country that you are living in. Saudi Arabia bans christian prayer groups, bibles, rosaries in its land. In some Muslim countries, if a Muslim converts to a Christian, he is automatically sentenced to death
R
r.gonzales
Guest
that’s because that’s the legislated punishment in islam for apostasy. however, that doesn’t change the fact that islam allows someone of another faith to keep that faith and is not to be forced to accept islam against his will.
G
George_Waters
Guest
So religious freedom only goes so far as to allow you to keep your current faith or to convert to Islam? No offense my friends, but that does make Islam the most tolerant religion. There is a certain amount of religious freedom there, but it is not complete religious freedom. Sure, you can argue that someone may by spoken ill of or even ostracized for leaving the Catholic faith, but they would not be executed.
Peace,
George
Peace,
George
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Ask any Christian, Jew, Hindu, Animist, or any other religionist how much religious freedom and tolerance exists within a Muslim dominated country. If you do and they are free to speak you will have your answer.
CDL
CDL
S
shockerfan
Guest
Does Islam not teach that there are 3 options for non-believers:
- Convert to Islam
- Live in “subjugation” (as a dhimma) and be subject to a “poll tax” called a "Jizya
- Death
S
shockerfan
Guest
You can say Islam is tolerant, but in practice it is extremely intolerant. (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan are all examples) Words are cheap my friend…you need to back up your statements with examples of your own.
R
r.gonzales
Guest
George Waters:
found this pretty interesting article containing descriptions of some of the methods of punishment that were meted out during these times… rotten.com/library/history/inquisition/.
shockerfan:
btw, the second option is to surrender to the muslim army and either leave the land or stay and live under the protection of the muslim conquerers, hence the term ahl adh-dhimmah–which literally means “the people of protection”. in lieu of this protection, they pay the jizyah.
also the third option is not death, it’s to fight, which does not necessitate death, nor is the intent behind the fighting necessarily to eradicate and kill the peoples who are being fought against. there are instances throughout history where people have fought against the invading muslim army, then later surrendered–as was the case with jerusalem when the 3rd caliph, umar bin al-khattaab, conquered it.
this may be so in current times with the many reformations the catholic church has gone through. however, it certainly wasn’t the case in the past with the inquisitions that took place throughout history, with people being burned at the stake or tortured–many times until they died–for holding heretic beliefs and “going against” the church.
found this pretty interesting article containing descriptions of some of the methods of punishment that were meted out during these times… rotten.com/library/history/inquisition/.
3 options for non-believers who a muslim army has come upon, meaning, in a context and situation of war.
btw, the second option is to surrender to the muslim army and either leave the land or stay and live under the protection of the muslim conquerers, hence the term ahl adh-dhimmah–which literally means “the people of protection”. in lieu of this protection, they pay the jizyah.
also the third option is not death, it’s to fight, which does not necessitate death, nor is the intent behind the fighting necessarily to eradicate and kill the peoples who are being fought against. there are instances throughout history where people have fought against the invading muslim army, then later surrendered–as was the case with jerusalem when the 3rd caliph, umar bin al-khattaab, conquered it.
L
Lance
Guest
Then why are you posting here?
You have a warped view of history. The Ottoman’s gained their empire through peace? The whole of the Arab world converted to Islam peacefully? Spain was glad to see the Moors and just welcomed them with open arms? IMO Mohammid was a false prophet and has caused more wars than any single man in history.
S
shockerfan
Guest
Many Muslims would call their “Jihad” upon the “west” as a situation of war. Al-Qaeda and numerous other terrorist organizations feel they are in a state of war right now against the west, so I guess these 3 options apply right now.
Another term for “jizyah” that is a little more current would be “extortion”.
I agree with you on this point. Since I don’t consider any of the options acceptable, I support our country’s war on terrorism.
S
Shenango
Guest
Wrong. Only the Islamic State can declare and wage a state of war, not a ragtag band of hellraisers. That’s what both you and these terrorist organizations don’t understand.
It’s not extortion if you get what you pay for…which is your defense.
W
Wolseley
Guest
The article in that link has so many errors in it, I don’t know where to begin.
Some of the more glaring examples:
Since the population of Europe in 1300 was only 10 million, and the entire population of the whole world didn’t reach 500 million until 1650, methinks the figures opined here are perhaps a shade inflated. The present-day population of England, France, Spain, and Italy combined is only 216 million. What does the author if this article think the Catholic Church did, import people from other planets to disagree with?
The Crusades had nothing to do with converting Muslims. Specifically, they were to secure the rights of Christian pilgrims to visit sacred sites in Palestine without fear of molestation. Later they segued into territorial conquest, but this still had nothing to do with converting Muslims.
And neither one was a function of the Catholic Church. The Spanish Inquisition was an arm of the Spanish Crown, under the auspices of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. The Albigensian Crusade was carried out by French secular forces under Simon de Montfort, not by the Church.
The Albigensians were a development from two other heretical groups, the Cathars and the Bogomils, and I guess you could say that they were strict Christians who held stoutly to the teachings of Christ—if you discount, of course, the fact that the Albigensians believed that Satan created the world, not God; that Adam and Eve were brought to life with the spirits of demons, not the breath of God; that Jesus entered and exited Mary’s body through her ear; that meat, cheese, and eggs were not to be eaten because they were the result of sexual activity; and that the practice of ritual suicide was a good thing.
W
Wolseley
Guest
Various historians place the number of deaths under various Catholic inquisitions in the vicinity of 3,000 to 4,000 over the course of approximately 300 years. The number varies since there is no way to ascertain the exact numbers. By comparison, however, 800 executions a year were carried out in the early post-Reformation period in England, where Catholic inquisitions never operated at all. The burning of alleged witches was practically unknown in Catholic countries, but quite common in Protestant countries, such as England, where 30,000 people were burned at the stake for supposed witchcraft; in Germany, the number was 100,000.
It’s clear by the tone of the article that the author has an agenda against the Catholic Church, but with numbers like those above, maybe he’d be better off to take after the Protestants. (After all, you have the Peasant’s Rebellion from 1524 to 1526, the Thirty Years War from 1618 to 1648, the Irish Conquest under Cromwell in 1649, the English persecutions under Henry VIII after 1534 and Elizabeth I after 1558, and the Salem Witch Trials in 1692, and in all of those, the Protestants killed a lot more people than all Catholic Inquisitions combined.) I admire his zeal, but it is misplaced.
Whereupon follows a repetition of the laundry list of horrors, trotted out verbatim from the Black Legend ever since the English pamphleteers invented it back in the 16th century.
Most of it is embellished and inflated, a good part of it is pure fabrication; but to refute it all would require, as the author of this article so whimsically puts it, a whole other article. Or two, or three.
In a nutshell, I would only advise that if this type of thing is where you’re getting your factual information from, be advised that it’s about as accurate as the “news articles” in the latest edition of The Star, where you have headlines like “Gigantic Outer Space Centipede Weds Two-Headed Elvis Clone in Raelian Ceremony! Details Inside!”
S
shockerfan
Guest
It does not matter if I as a Catholic do not understand all of the teachings of Islam. I will continue to educate myself, so that I can better discuss these issues with you.
What does matter is what those “ragtag band of hellraisers” think. Why? Because their interpretation is their impetus behind trying to kill people like me (and you as well).
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
Islam is not a religion of peace.
Muslims are commaned to fight (offensively, and not only defensively) all non-Muslims in the world until they convert, pay Jizya in humiliation or die.
Islam gives Christians and Jews (and possibly Zoroastrians) 3 choices:
1- become Muslim
2- or live under Islam and pay Jizya in humiliation
3- or die
Other non-Muslims have only 2 choices
1- become Muslim
2- or die
not only that, but if a Muslim renounces Islam or converts, the punishment is death.
How is that a religion of peace?
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033:
“It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.”
Is this not a clear command to fight non-Muslims until they convert to Islam?
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”
The verse it is referring to is Sura 3:110 in the Quran
Does this not imply that Muslims are commanded to force non-Muslims to convert to Islam?
Muslims are commaned to fight (offensively, and not only defensively) all non-Muslims in the world until they convert, pay Jizya in humiliation or die.
Islam gives Christians and Jews (and possibly Zoroastrians) 3 choices:
1- become Muslim
2- or live under Islam and pay Jizya in humiliation
3- or die
Other non-Muslims have only 2 choices
1- become Muslim
2- or die
not only that, but if a Muslim renounces Islam or converts, the punishment is death.
How is that a religion of peace?
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033:
“It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.”
Is this not a clear command to fight non-Muslims until they convert to Islam?
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”
The verse it is referring to is Sura 3:110 in the Quran
Does this not imply that Muslims are commanded to force non-Muslims to convert to Islam?
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
On top of that, according to al-Mawardi (d. 1058), Shafi’i jusrist of Baghdad, author of important treatise on constitutional law
“Whoever converts from a Jewish to a Christian sect is not free to do so. According to the more correct of the two opinions he is **obliged ** to become a Muslim.”
hmmm, i wonder what will happen if he refuses to become a Muslim?
“Whoever converts from a Jewish to a Christian sect is not free to do so. According to the more correct of the two opinions he is **obliged ** to become a Muslim.”
hmmm, i wonder what will happen if he refuses to become a Muslim?
S
St.Eric
Guest
The command of endless “Jihad” pretty much puts tolerance in the category of “lip service.” I think history also proves that Islam is called to make all people submit to Islam. Anyone remember the Ottoman-Turk empire. Islam was on a conquest- and nearly succeeded- to make all of Europe submit. Islam is indeed a religion of peace, as long as you are a Muslim.
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
in case anyone was interested, my source for this quote of al-Mawardi (d. 1058), is
‘The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam’ by Bat Ye’or (revised and enlarged english edition) p176
L
Lance
Guest
The notion that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance is : absurdity, balderdash, baloney, bilge, bull, bunk, debris, drivel, eyewash, foolishness, hokum, hooey, horsefeathers, piffle, poppycock, refuse, ridiculousness, rot, rubbish, trash, and twaddle.
- Status