Peace and Love In Quran

[schaick]

planten does this say it better now?

The peaceful verses are early in Mohammad’s career and the hateful, prejudiced ones came later. Muslims will tell you that no verse is abrogated. Allah sends a verse but then later will send a verse that is “better” or equal.

Question-
This means not equal or similar in content/subject but of importance? So it remains the warring verses are equal or better then the peaceful verses?

The Quran is so limited in information, vague, how does a believer know that a violent verse is not better, but similar inimportance? Why would GOD reveal a book that needed people to interprete the importance of a verse? These interpreters could have ulterior motives.

2.106
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
PICKTHAL: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?
SHAKIR: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

LITERAL:We do not erase/nullify/abolish from a sign/verse/evidence , or We make it forgotten, (except that) We come/bring with better than it, or similar/equal/alike to it. Do you not know that God (is) on every thing powerful/capable ?
FREE_MINDS:We do not duplicate a sign, or make it forgotten, unless We bring one which is like it or even greater. Did you not know that God is capable of all things?
KHALIFA:When we abrogate any miracle, or cause it to be forgotten, we produce a better miracle, or at least an equal one. Do you not recognize the fact that GOD is Omnipotent?

Mohammad/allah seems to be very concerned about his believers conquering and taking revenge against non-believers. It seems to me that Muslims have to do allah’s dirty work here on earth.

 

[sedonaman]

2.106
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar:…

Which leads to the question of why Allah didn’t reveal the better one first, since he is all-knowing and all-powerful.

Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

He can even make two conflicting statements that are both true at the same time. Sorta like the question, “If God can do anything, can he make a rock bigger than he can lift?”

Quote:Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical ideology? Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim?

This reminds a scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light a particle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality manifests. Islam functions in the same manner.

Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.*
Unquote.
Source: The Study of Political Islam.

*Note: We call this “situational ethics.”

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

so that i asked this question
first of all i want to know your problem with quran being revealed through 23 years ( the duration of prophethood) according to the events ?

That’s completely irrelevant. I said that some passages were revealed at a later time, hence why Mohammad’s tone changed. You’re asking why I have a problem with the Koran being revealed through 23 years. That’s not even what I’m talking about.

so that it was important to ask you the second question
secondly , do you agree with me that we have to backup the historical background which related to the verses of quran before judging on it ?

Yes, but that is again irrelevant. When the Koran says, “Don’t take Jews and Christians for friends,” and, “Fight those who aren’t Muslim until they pay the jizya and feel subdued,” there’s little historical background can do to put lipstick on that pig. It’s like those Serbs who try to go back 50 years to Croatian/Muslim atrocities to justify their hatred of Muslims, Croatians, etc.

and again , it was important to me to asking my third question
third question is , what is your defination for God of love ? is that mean that God loves all people , sinners of them and rightious of them , is that mean that he never cursed any one ? didn’t he cursed the antichrist ? is that mean that theire is no punishment for sinners or disbelievers in the hearafter ?

That is completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. In fact, I answered that in a previous post when I told you why my Lord never curses any one.

What I brought up was the fact that the Koran gets Jewish worship services wrong and curses them for it, and that wasn’t a sign of love in the Koran. You jump topics and ask me what my definition of God’s love is. That’s the most prime example of a non-sequitor that I’ve ever seen.

and without expanding the discussion , B.W , you have to answer these questions
if you refused , then it’s the end of the discussion for me…

No, elwill, I don’t have to meet any demands, and I think those reading this thread will see that I’ve tried to be patient with you in that regard. The fact is you asked for me to make a condensed argument, I made one, now you are - for the second time in this thread - completely avoiding any real response to what I have to say. You cannot make up standards for a discussion. That is intellectual dishonesty. I responded to you, now you have to respond to me. That is how debate works.

So now, I am going to ask you plainly: please respond to the post I made for you.

and thanx for everyone helped to answers my questions , i will read them again later

I thought these questions were just for me, in order to understand where I was coming from, now you’re saying others can answer them. Again, I highly doubt you asked them in the hopes of bringing fruit to our discussion - I think it’s starting to be plain that you brought them up to avoid answering what I had brought forward.

 

[captainmike]

Christianity will win in the free marketplace of ideas. Islam gains and keeps converts by the sword (or, in the 21st century, by the underwear bomb). In the long run, that will fail.

 

[elwill]

That’s completely irrelevant. I said that some passages were revealed at a later time, hence why Mohammad’s tone changed. You’re asking why I have a problem with the Koran being revealed through 23 years. That’s not even what I’m talking about.

i’m not understanding , actually each verse revealed for a reason , it’s according to the events and the situation and according to whom he is talking about .
from your point of view , when exactly he started to change his tone ? in which year ?

or do you think that firstly he command muslims to be kind with innocents , then he changed it to killing everyone even the peacefull of them if they didn’t believe !

Yes, but that is again irrelevant. When the Koran says, “Don’t take Jews and Christians for friends,” and, “Fight those who aren’t Muslim until they pay the jizya and feel subdued,”** there’s little historical background can do to put lipstick on that pig. It’s like those Serbs who try to go back 50 years to Croatian/Muslim atrocities to justify their hatred of Muslims, Croatians, etc.**

is that mean that you don’t want to take the historical background as a factor for correct interpretation ? can i consider your answer that historical background of the verse isn’t important in your exploring quran ?

That is completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. In fact, I answered that in a previous post when I told you why my Lord never curses any one.

so everyone will be in piece according to christianity ? their is no hell for unbelievers and sinners

What I brought up was the fact that the Koran gets Jewish worship services wrong and curses them for it, and that wasn’t a sign of love in the Koran. You jump topics and ask me what my definition of God’s love is. That’s the most prime example of a non-sequitor that I’ve ever seen.

but we are not argue if quran correct or not , we arguing about if God is love or not , in this verse it’s clear that God dosn’t love such actions ( whither they did or not ) , so is that mean to you that God isn’t love because he hate wrong beliefs ?

No, elwill, I don’t have to meet any demands, and I think those reading this thread will see that I’ve tried to be patient with you in that regard. The fact is you asked for me to make a condensed argument, I made one, now you are - for the second time in this thread - completely avoiding any real response to what I have to say. You cannot make up standards for a discussion. That is intellectual dishonesty. I responded to you, now you have to respond to me. That is how debate works.

thank you for your patience

So now, I am going to ask you plainly: please respond to the post I made for you.

sure , but i have a problem
what if you argue with me about something i don’t believe in
as for example , when you think that tolerance were abrogated , while muslims don’t think that !!!

I thought these questions were just for me, in order to understand where I was coming from, now you’re saying others can answer them. Again, I highly doubt you asked them in the hopes of bringing fruit to our discussion - I think it’s starting to be plain that you brought them up to avoid answering what I had brought forward.

i just thanking whoever participate and tried to answer my questions , but you are right my questions was just for you because i wanted to understand you

 

[elwill]

There are many verses that speak of tolerance, but there are just as many verses which do not. Many of these intolerant verses, as I said, were revealed at a later time, when Mohammad had more power and was beginning to expand his control over the peninsula.

do you mean that he never breached tolerance later ?

do you know that Muhammad (pbuh) conquered Mecca without bloodshed and in a spirit of tolerance. If he wished, Muhammad could have taken revenge on pagan leaders in the city. Yet, he did not do harm to any one of them, forgave them and treated them with the utmost tolerance.

he always addressed believers who were about to go to war in the following terms: “Go to war in adherence to the religion of God. Never touch the elderly, women or children. Always improve their situation and be kind to them. God loves those who are sincere.”
The Messenger of God also clarified the attitude Muslims must adopt even when they are in the middle of a raging battle:
Do not kill children. Avoid touching people who devote themselves to worship in churches! Never murder women and the elderly. Do not set trees on fire or cut them down. Never destroy houses!

The Islamic principles God proclaims in the Qur’an account for this peaceful and temperate policy of the Prophet Muhammad. In the Qur’an, God commands believers to treat the non-Muslims kindly and justly:
God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you over religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you over religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion… (Qur’an, 60:8-9

B.W , all these accounts are recorded in the later time , it’s full of tolerance
what is the source of your knowledge ?

Now first let’s review the first hot-topic passage in the Koran:

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. [S. 5:51; Yusuf Ali]

what about this word " allies" instead of friends , and what about if this meant to be in political field ,
do you think that allah will allow us to marry from christians , and in the same time forbidding simple friendship with them
it’s just mistranslated words , and you can find that it’s okey with muslims to take friends , explore the islamic sites and see what they say about this matter

And the second hot-topic passage in the Koran:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [S. 9:29; Yusuf Ali]

accept it or not . fight dosn’t always means physical one

Unlike previous revelation given by Mohammad, self-defense has been thrown right out the window. Muslims are instructed to fight in war - and when? When they’re attacked? When they’re oppressed? No…fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day…even if if they are the People of the Book. The pretext is a religious reason. And when do you stop fighting these people? When they stop fighting you? No - until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Until they feel “subdued,” or again as some translations put it: “brought low”; “in a state of subjection.” Remember, when you read all of Surat 9, it is clearly military in context - you cannot claim that this one passage happens to be a metaphorical or personal jihad. Yes, I recognize that jihad can be personal, but S. 9:29 is not an example of this. To argue that is to ignore the context.

may it’s you who wanna to throw such verses from window , but muslims don’t

Some treaties between The Prophet (PBUH) and inhabitants of the conquered lands were documented. Those treaties shared the fact that people, not only People of the Book but also Magus and others, were secured to practice their worship system, and left free to choose their beliefs as far as they did not harm others. The Prophet (PBUH) , for instance, addressed Najran inhabitants (some place in Arabia very close to Yemen) telling them,
"all archbishops, priests, with their followers and monks have to keep up full authority over their churches and monasteries, few or many. They are to be regarded (by Muslims) as neighbors of Allah and His Prophet. An archbishop, a priest, or a monk is not to be forced to quit his faith. And none of them is to be slipped of any of his legal rights or authority as long as they are performing their duties without extending any injustice to anyone, and without being treated unjustly”(PH)

Ibn Saad, P. 2. pp. 30, 31.

Again, the jizya was a tax on non-Muslims targeting them specifically for their non-Muslim faith. That is not religious tolerance, and it is not love and peace. Before you perhaps leap to the argument that it was done for their protection, please respond to the question I put before you in a previous post:

may be it’s not relegious tolerence for muslims , as for the taxs be taken from muslims are more than that’s which taken from christians

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 1/2)

do you know that Muhammad (pbuh) conquered Mecca without bloodshed and in a spirit of tolerance. If he wished, Muhammad could have taken revenge on pagan leaders in the city. Yet, he did not do harm to any one of them, forgave them and treated them with the utmost tolerance.

Yes, he was very peaceful…in that instance. In fact, shortly thereafter was when he enacted the rule that Muslims could push Jews and Christians off the side of the road. Some hadith examples:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:
Suhayl ibn AbuSalih said: I went out with my father to Syria. The people passed by the cloisters in which there were Christians and began to salute them. My father said: Do not give them salutation first, for AbuHurayrah reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not salute them (Jews and Christians) first, and when you meet them on the road, force them to go to the narrowest part of it. [Sunan Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 5186]

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it. [Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5389]

That is not peaceful. Also, S. 9:29 was revealed after the conquest of Mecca - neither is that peaceful. And we see it carried out in the hadith:

Ibn Umar reported that 'Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) expelled the Jews and Christians from the land of Hijaz, and that when Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) conquered Khaibar he made up his mind to expel the Jews from it (the territory of Khaibar) because, when that land was conquered, it came under the sway of Allah, that of His Messenger (may peace be upon him) and that of the Muslims… [Sahih Muslim Book 010, Number 3763]

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. [Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4366]

Again, not peaceful, tolerant, understanding or loving.

The Islamic principles God proclaims in the Qur’an account for this peaceful and temperate policy of the Prophet Muhammad. In the Qur’an, God commands believers to treat the non-Muslims kindly and justly…

As I showed in the previous response, many of those “policies” need to be called into question. If they are “peaceful and temperate,” I question your definition of those words.

B.W , all these accounts are recorded in the later time , it’s full of tolerance
what is the source of your knowledge ?

From the exact same sources you are drawing from, as I showed in my previous responses (and the ones to follow). The only difference is I look at the fullness of it, and not pick and choose what I want to portray half the story.

what about this word " allies" instead of friends , and what about if this meant to be in political field

Is that the actual translation of the word, or are you simply replacing it with something that sounds nicer? And what from this passage makes you believe that it is a political context? In fact it seems to ignore the context practiced by the companions.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili that Abdullah ibn Abbas was asked about animals slaughtered by the Christian Arabs. He said, “There is no harm in them,” but he recited this ayat, “Whoever takes them as friends is from them.” (Sura 5 ayat 54). [Sunan Abu Dawud Book 24, Number 24.2.5]

The application does not seem to be political at all, but personal, as you and I are talking. The preceding and following verses seem to support that, as it is talking about Jewish, Christian and pagan practices and beliefs. Again, to quote from Muslim sources:

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Umar ordered Abu Musa Al-Ashari to send him on one sheet of balance the count of what he took in and what he spent. Abu Musa then had a Christian scribe, and he was able to comply with Umar's demand. Umar liked what he saw and exclaimed, "This scribe is proficient. Would you read in the Masjid a letter that came to us from Ash-Sham’’ Abu Musa said, He cannot.'' Umar said, "Is he not pure’’ Abu Musa said, "No, but he is Christian.’’ Abu Musa said, "So Umar admonished me and poked my thigh (with his finger), saying, Drive him out (from Al-Madinah).’ He then recited, "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends…’’ Then he reported that Abdullah bin Utbah said, "Let one of you beware that he might be a Jew or a Christian, while unaware.’’ [Ibn Kathir, tafsir.com”]source; emphasis mine]

Even replacing “friends” with “allies” is not any better. Being forbidden from being political allies with non-Muslims for religious reasons is religious intolerance. The fact you admit this without seeming to understand the implications is somewhat shocking.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 2/2)

do you think that allah will allow us to marry from christians , and in the same time forbidding simple friendship with them

That is incorrect - only Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian women (S. 5:5). Christian men cannot marry Muslim women. And in response to your question: with the policy of abrogation, yes.

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said, **I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah**...This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, **"It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.''** Al-Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed…’’ [Ibn Kathir, tafsir.com”]source; emphasis mine]

it’s just mistranslated words , and you can find that it’s okey with muslims to take friends , explore the islamic sites and see what they say about this matter

And how would that compare to how the Koran is written and what the early companions and others interpreted it?

accept it or not . fight dosn’t always means physical one

I addressed this in a previous post, which you refused to answer, and now you’re simply repeating your argument. Repeating an argument is not the same as demonstrating it.

The fact is, Surat 9 is a military hadith, and this passage is military in nature and is clearly talking about war. There is no way you can transform it into a “personal” jihad, unless you simply ignore the passage and make up your own exegesis based on what you want to believe.

So far you have not truly exegeted S. 9:29, only bickered on the definition of “fight.”

may it’s you who wanna to throw such verses from window , but muslims don’t

Once again, you’ve responded to the first sentence and completely ignored everything that came after it. Are you even aware how insulting it is when someone responds to your point with a clear explanation, exegeting the text, and you simply respond with a one-sentence statement that ignores 95% of what they’ve written?

I’ve explained S. 9:29 in detail to show the full context of what it means. Again, all you have done is play word games with what “fight” means. I would greatly appreciate if you would address the text in full.

Some treaties between The Prophet (PBUH) and inhabitants of the conquered lands were documented. Those treaties shared the fact that people, not only People of the Book but also Magus and others, were secured to practice their worship system, and left free to choose their beliefs as far as they did not harm others. The Prophet (PBUH) , for instance, addressed Najran inhabitants (some place in Arabia very close to Yemen) telling them

What does this have to do with S. 9:29?

And what of the treaties that came later?

…the Leader of the faithful Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, **these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace**. The scholars of Hadith narrated from Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ashari that he said, "I recorded for Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful...We [the Christians] made a condition on ourselves that **we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration**...We will...refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches...or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches...nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets..." When I gave this document to Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.’’’ [Ibn Kathir, tafsir.com”]source; emphasis mine]

None of this seems to show love, peace or understanding.

may be it’s not relegious tolerence for muslims , as for the taxs be taken from muslims are more than that’s which taken from christians

The jizya is done for religious reasons to make the persons feel “subdued” and feel “brought low”, whereas the zakat serves as a means of charity. So yes, the jizya is religious intolerance for non-Muslims. The zakat is irrelevant to the subject. The reasons for the two are polar opposites.

Furthermore, I asked you in a previous post to cite sources showing that the zakat is larger than the jizya. I will ask you again to kindly show me from what source you got those numbers and the fact it is larger than jizya. However, even if zakat were larger than jizya, it would still contradict your point of love and peace in the Koran - a tax levied on non-Muslims because they are not Muslims and with the intention to make them feel subdued is not love and peace.

 

[Nine_Two]

The latest post #76 from BW also does not help. It only accuses elwill with some bad practices. But no reply is given to elwill.

Yes, quite unhelpful since the dishonesty was plain for all to see.

 

[bridgeforsale]

You know I swear, religious people are so full of it sometimes. Insincere affection, claims of being peaceful, whatever. Why not speak truthfully?

Islam isn’t peaceful, because it’s a primitive desert religion invented by an illiterate man who married a six year old - near infant (and we can assume frequently had sex with her). It’s sickening that anyone could think such a person was a representative of the all powerful god who created our universe and is infinite in scope (I wish I was god’s lawyer, I’d sue Muslims for slander for ever associating my client’s good name with such a vile wretch of man). The only thing amazing to me is there’s over a billion people worldwide mesmerized by this sheer lunacy.

At least Jesus, as fictional as the myths surrounding his life probably are, is a fitting representative for this god we think exists (although I take issue with the idea of a god who created the universe with the eventual intention of coming to earth for a suicide mission, which is just ludicrous to me). I guess for me it’s impossible to think god is truly represented by any of these ancient religions, which are simply too primitive and too bizarre to resemble the truth in any significant way.

 

[elwill]

(Part 1/2)

Yes, he was very peaceful…in that instance. In fact, shortly thereafter was when he enacted the rule that Muslims could push Jews and Christians off the side of the road. Some hadith examples:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:
Suhayl ibn AbuSalih said: I went out with my father to Syria. The people passed by the cloisters in which there were Christians and began to salute them. My father said: Do not give them salutation first, for AbuHurayrah reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not salute them (Jews and Christians) first, and when you meet them on the road, force them to go to the narrowest part of it. [Sunan Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 5186]
​

hi B.W
i’m very sorry for the late answer , very busy these days

so you consider islam to be intolerance becuase it was recorded that someday someone heared the prophet says to push christians and jews in the narrowest road .
i can understand why the first idea will comes to your mind is that : wow he insult and humiliate them by such way

bu for me as for i believe that in entire life of the prophet , he was very kind to them and very tolerance with them , it will make me asking a question where i can’t find an answer .
why the prophet said that ? in which situation ? what happend ?
all what we have is that someone says " i heared the prophet says such and such"
may be he wanted their protection in the crowded roads as in the markets
can you imagine the meaning of “narrowest road” in desert 1400 years ago . do you know that narrowest road in desert means that the place is very crowded , and when he said to push them in the narrowest may it’s for their protection and for their safe

is that mean i will ignore the entire and clear history of mohammed (pbuh) and all his companions after them !

The Prophet emphasized in many letters to his emissaries that religious institutions should not be harmed. Here in a letter addressed to his emissary to the religious leaders of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai who has sought the protection of the Muslims:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are declared to be protected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world

He always wanted to make peace among people. At an early age it is reported that when some people of Makkah wanted to establish a committee to suppress violence in their society, he immediately joined them. This committee took a pledge of virtue known as the Hilf al-Fudul. Later during his prophetic life he recalled this pledge and praised it highly and said, “Even now if I am called upon in the name of this pledge, I shall not refuse.”

In Madinah he established a state where all people were equal, where matters were decided through consultation, and where all people had to follow the same law. It was a state without any favoritism in favor of any family or group. Even a non-Muslim was not to be mistreated under his rule. The story of Tu’mah ibn Abraq is an excellent example of justice and human rights for all people under his authority. Tu’mah, who was a Muslim, stole someone’s armor in Madinah and then he blamed a Jew. Allah sent a special revelation to warn people against such injustice (see Surat An-Nisaa’: 110-112). The Jewish citizen of Madinah was declared innocent and Tu’mah was found guilty.

---

While Omar ben Kattab in his accord with the people of Al-Quds, he wrote:
“In the name of Allah the Most Gracious the Most Merciful. Here is what the servant of Allah, Omar, the Commander of believers has offered to the people of Elya as security measure. I have guaranteed for you the safety of your self and your wealth and your churches and crosses, and safety for the sick and innocent and of your religious creed. Do not live in their churches and never break down any of the churches and do not take anything away from the churches, or from their wealth. Do not force them to leave their faith and non of them should be harmed.”
Oma ben Khattab, for fear for Resurrection Church from being taken by Muslims, he objected to pray inside it. When the time of prayers came, he refused to pray inside the church at the request of the church’s priest, and prayed out side. When the high priest asked him for the reason, he told him: If I could pray inside the church, Muslims will take it after me. They will say: Omar prayed here.” He told Muslims who were with him not to pray in the church. He asked the priest to give him a piece of land to build a mosque. The priest told him, you may build your mosque high on the rock where Jacob talked to the Lord.

this is just samples of what we knows about tolerance of islam ​

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

EDIT: Oops, sorry, it said you went offline I thought you were done.

so you consider islam to be intolerance becuase it was recorded that someday someone heared the prophet says to push christians and jews in the narrowest road .

Actually, what I’ve argued is Islam is intolerant based on many commands from Mohammad and passages within the Koran, all of which I have quoted throughout this thread, using only Muslim sources.

bu for me as for i believe that in entire life of the prophet , he was very kind to them and very tolerance with them , it will make me asking a question where i can’t find an answer .
why the prophet said that ? in which situation ? what happend ?
all what we have is that someone says " i heared the prophet says such and such"
may be he wanted their protection in the crowded roads as in the markets
can you imagine the meaning of “narrowest road” in desert 1400 years ago . do you know that narrowest road in desert means that the place is very crowded , and when he said to push them in the narrowest may it’s for their protection and for their safe

Ah, Elwill, if only you had lived during the 1950’s southern United States. I can see you now, going before Martin Luther King and telling him, “No no, you don’t understand! The reason black people are forced to the back of the bus and have to give up their seats to a white person is for their protection! If the bus gets into a head-on crash it will be the white people who die first! Don’t you see? White people are sacrificing themselves for the blacks! So the Jim Crow laws aren’t intolerant!”

The fact is, you have not presented anything to substantiate your claim. You’ve done what you’ve done often before, which is say, “Well here’s how I think it went down.” I’ve quoted from hadith and Koranic sources - if you have any such sources that support your claim, then bring them forward rather than rambling and trying to second guess why Mohammad did what he did.

You keep saying, “Let’s look at the historical context,” but thus far I’m the only one who’s really presented any historical context for their position. For example, you claimed that “friends” in S. 5:51 probably meant “political allies,” but backed it up with nothing except your personal opinion. I brought forward hadith sources that showed that, yes, it does mean friends, and is not solely political in context - which you have yet to respond to.

 

[elwill]

Is that the actual translation of the word, or are you simply replacing it with something that sounds nicer? And what from this passage makes you believe that it is a political context? In fact it seems to ignore the context practiced by the companions.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili that Abdullah ibn Abbas was asked about animals slaughtered by the Christian Arabs. He said, “There is no harm in them,” but he recited this ayat, “Whoever takes them as friends is from them.” (Sura 5 ayat 54). [Sunan Abu Dawud Book 24, Number 24.2.5]

actually not , it’s not the actual translation . as for the actual translation have no synonym in english
the word “awleyaa” in arabic never used to mean frienship nor allies , this word actually used very specifically and in specific cases and with spcific persons
it’s used with God . when we say" waleyyeh allah " which mean " completely depend on him "
and it’s used to refere to someone who is responsible for underaged children ( whither the parents or uncles or whoever responsible for them untill they become mature )

and it’s used sometimes refering to disblievers acts for anyone take for himself "awleyaa " beisde allah . it refere to someone share attributes of God as asking forgivness from other than God

this arabic word can to mean friend , but not this kind of friendship that we can have , its special relation , it’s not the smae meaning which comes to your mind
the same arabic can to mean ally , but not any kind of allys , your country have political allies with many countries but not all of them with same degree
this word " awleyaa" is such degree which can’t to be with other faiths . it dosn’t mean atall any intolerance

The application does not seem to be political at all, but personal, as you and I are talking. The preceding and following verses seem to support that, as it is talking about Jewish, Christian and pagan practices and beliefs. Again, to quote from Muslim sources:

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Umar ordered Abu Musa Al-Ashari to send him on one sheet of balance the count of what he took in and what he spent. Abu Musa then had a Christian scribe , and he was able to comply with Umar's demand. Umar liked what he saw and exclaimed, "This scribe is proficient. Would you read in the Masjid a letter that came to us from Ash-Sham’’ Abu Musa said, He cannot.'' Umar said, "Is he not pure’’ Abu Musa said, "No, but he is Christian.’’ Abu Musa said, "So Umar admonished me and poked my thigh (with his finger), saying, Drive him out (from Al-Madinah).’ He then recited, "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends…’’ Then he reported that Abdullah bin Utbah said, "Let one of you beware that he might be a Jew or a Christian, while unaware.’’ [Ibn Kathir, tafsir.com”]source

; emphasis mine]

Even replacing “friends” with “allies” is not any better. Being forbidden from being political allies with non-Muslims for religious reasons is religious intolerance. The fact you admit this without seeming to understand the implications is somewhat shocking.

where is the intolerance in this , is that because he refused the christian to be the scriber for the money of state ?
did he dealt with him harshly or something ? he just have more trust in muslim scriber to transmit to him the balance of the country !

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

actually not , it’s not the actual translation

Then please stop trying to present mock translations based on your preconceived notions.

where is the intolerance in this , is that because he refused the christian to be the scriber for the money of state ?
did he dealt with him harshly or something ? he just have more trust in muslim scriber to transmit to him the balance of the country !

He banished a Christian scribe (who is described as “proficient”) for his religious affiliation alone. He cited the Koran to prove what he did was justifiable. I thought you said a person was judged in Islam by deeds, not who they were? This is clearly intolerance. If the scribe had been a Muslim and had been banished by a Christian simply for his religion, you would be calling it intolerance. Yes, this is intolerance, and what’s more it’s using Muslim scripture to justify it. Again, the fact you don’t understand why this is intolerance is very, very shocking.

 

[elwill]

EDIT: Oops, sorry, it said you went offline I thought you were done.

Actually, what I’ve argued is Islam is intolerant based on many commands from Mohammad and passages within the Koran, all of which I have quoted throughout this thread, using only Muslim sources.

Ah, Elwill, if only you had lived during the 1950’s southern United States. I can see you now, going before Martin Luther King and telling him, “No no, you don’t understand! The reason black people are forced to the back of the bus and have to give up their seats to a white person is for their protection! If the bus gets into a head-on crash it will be the white people who die first! Don’t you see? White people are sacrificing themselves for the blacks! So the Jim Crow laws aren’t intolerant!”

The fact is, you have not presented anything to substantiate your claim. You’ve done what you’ve done often before, which is say, “Well here’s how I think it went down.” I’ve quoted from hadith and Koranic sources - if you have any such sources that support your claim, then bring them forward rather than rambling and trying to second guess why Mohammad did what he did.

You keep saying, “Let’s look at the historical context,” but thus far I’m the only one who’s really presented any historical context for their position. For example, you claimed that “friends” in S. 5:51 probably meant “political allies,” but backed it up with nothing except your personal opinion. I brought forward hadith sources that showed that, yes, it does mean friends, and is not solely political in context - which you have yet to respond to.

so the clear examples i gave about the tolerance of mohammed (pbuh) to other people , dosn’t mean to you that slam is tolerance
the hadeeth dosn’t describe the purpose from it and there is no events back up it to understand this case
but i gave you clear ones here

will you give blind eyes for them , and just open it with records of uncleared event .

just take under you consideration the big image ( the entire image )

 

[elwill]

Then please stop trying to present mock translations based on your preconceived notions.

hahaahhaha
you didn’t quote the rest of my answer , and you even didn’t comment it
why you quoting my words out of context B.W !

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

the hadeeth dosn’t describe the purpose from it and there is no events back up it to understand this case

I think it does, and I think the early Muslims fully understood it (as shown in one of the hadith sources I cited), you simply refuse to see it for yourself.

just take under you consideration the big image ( the entire image )

I have, which is why I have quoted throughout this thread many hadith and Koranic sources contrary to your final conclusion. You have not even responded to all of them in full, instead choosing to attack specific ones and play rhetoric on what they mean. I cannot ignore evil simply because it is coated with some good.

 

[elwill]

He banished a Christian scribe (who is described as “proficient”) for his religious affiliation alone. He cited the Koran to prove what he did was justifiable. I thought you said a person was judged in Islam by deeds, not who they were? This is clearly intolerance. If the scribe had been a Muslim and had been banished by a Christian simply for his religion, you would be calling it intolerance. Yes, this is intolerance, and what’s more it’s using Muslim scripture to justify it. Again, the fact you don’t understand why this is intolerance is very, very shocking.

tolerance means that one is free to adhere to one’s own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others."

tolerance for me simply dosn’t mean that i have to trust you in my money

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

hahaahhaha
you didn’t quote the rest of my answer , and you even didn’t comment it
why you quoting my words out of context B.W !

Again, your sarcasm betrays your ignorance. For most of this thread, you have done nothing but take one or two points from two posts worth of argumentation and take them out of context, therefore this can only be the pot calling the kettle black.

The fact you cannot address the majority of argumentation presented against you, I believe, really says something about how truly defensible the idea of “peace and love” within the Koran and Islam is. When you have to play word games with “fight” and claim you don’t see the intolerance in cursing Jews for something they don’t believe in, shoving people off the road because of what their religion is, and teaching that angels curse a wife who doesn’t sexually please her husband…well, again, that speaks for itself.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

tolerance means that one is free to adhere to one’s own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others."

tolerance for me simply dosn’t mean that i have to trust you in my money

First off, please stop quoting responses from chunks of one posts in individual posts, they are making organized discussion difficult.

Now, tolerance - especially religious tolerance - means accepting others for who they are regardless of race, age, creed, etc. In the hadith I presented we have an example of a Muslim ruler who finds a man qualified for a job. Upon finding out that he’s a Christian he kicks the man out of the city itself and quotes the Koran saying, “Do not make friends with the Christians and Jews.” He even warns his men that some people might be Jews and Christians in disguise.

Now let’s put things in perspective: a Muslim man goes to get a job. He is very qualified. The boss at the job, a non-Muslim, is happy with him, until suddenly he finds out he’s a Muslim. He points a finger and yells, “Get him out of this city!” and they chase him out. The boss then says, “Don’t take any Muslims for friends, boys! And by the way, be careful - one of you might know a Muslim and not know it.”

Would you think this was intolerant? No, of course not. So please, I say this sincerely, stop playing double standards.