A
Ahimsa
Guest
All I can suggest is (1) read commentaries of the Qur’an (since you weren’t there when it was written); and (2) biographies of Muhammad from a Muslim perspective.
- Status
M
mike182d
Guest
Do you believe Muhammad’s attack on Mecca was defensive?I have no idea. But given their previous behavior, I wouldn’t put it pass the Romans to have engaged in some nefarious activity.
Anyway, the question was whether the Qur’an justifies offensive, unprovoked military behavior – not whether Muslims after the time of Muhammad engage in what the Qur’an prohibited.
E
Eden
Guest
This is a very good question as I am descended both from a branch of the Catholic O’Neills in Ulster who lost their land after “the flight of the earls” as well as from Scotch-Irish who were Protestants planted in Ulster to colonize Ireland for England and later came to colonize Virginia. So I am very familiar with the historical roots of the conflict. I could go into depth about the roots of the animosity there but this thread is not about Northern Ireland. In short, the conflict is less about religion (surprisingly, this is just about the only thing they don’t have in common so it becomes an exaggerated identity) and more about colonial politics. The emphasis on religious differences is called the “narcissism of differences”.
I digress. The violence that I witnessed between Muslims was not sectarian. The violence was between three Muslim men - one of whom the other two believed was publicly speaking against Islam. I lived in London in the late '90s and went one Sunday to Hyde Park’s Speaker’s Corner. This is where anyone can stand up on a soapbox and talk about anything. There was a Muslim man at Speaker’s Corner that day who had a very elaborate set-up with him. He was flanked on either side by large posters with photographs and statistics about slavery in Muslim Africa. The man had been speaking for about 5 minutes when I noticed two Muslim men talking closely to eachother and gesturing as they spoke. At intervals they would make audible angry comments directed at the speaker. At first, the two men appeared to be walking away after others said, “Let him speak!” several times. But they came hurriedly back after a minute, grabbed the man and pulled him down off the box. While one man held the speaker’s arms back, the other kicked him full force squarely in the stomach. Then the men fled. No one thought to stop the attackers because we were all concerned about the injured man. We all ran to his aid while people shouted to the crowds listening to other speakers “Call an ambulance!” It wasn’t until a few moments later when the police arrived that we all realized no one had stopped the attackers. The injured man was very shaken and appeared to have internal bleeding from the initial observations of the paramedics. I have no idea if he survived as I never read anything about the incident in the newspaper. As I have had very little contact with Muslims, I made the generalization at the time (I realize it is a “generalization”) that Muslims will use violence to keep eachother from saying anything out of line with Islam. Do you have any reaction or explanation as to what was going on between these Muslim men at the park that day and is this incident against the teachings of Islam?
I
Irenicist
Guest
Ok, I see what he is getting at. It’s misleading, however. In the 7th century most Christians did not live in Egypt, Palestine, Syria or North Africa, nor were these “the core of the Christian world”. You could make the argument that by virtue of conquering a lot of empty desert, two thirds of the surface area of the formerly Christian world was in Muslim hands, but this would no longer have been true when the Turks conquered Asia Minor as the Slavs had by then been converted.
This is just playing with statistics to overstate a point.
Irenicist
I
Irenicist
Guest
Who ever claimed Muslims didn’t conquer Christian lands? Are we talking past each other?
It’s conversion by pressure, certainly, but not by force or violence.
That’s a more legitimate question. My understanding is that Islam allows for the conquest of lands where the practice of Islam is forbidden, but I could be wrong. I think you might be on stronger grounds questioning why Muslim lands were so frequently at war with each other if Islam is a religion of peace. But then the same question could be asked of Christians.
Irenicist
M
mike182d
Guest
Isn’t this just semantics though? That’s like a police officer saying: “No, I’m afraid this man did not die from being shot; his heart just stopped beating.”
A
Ahimsa
Guest
The historical sources indicate that the non-Muslim Meccans weren’t all that friendly towards Muhammad and his followers.
Y
yqbdd
Guest
or like “we know he’s not the Holy Father, but we call him the Holy Father because… we can tell the difference.”?
I
Irenicist
Guest
I see that you consider death and taxes not only inevitable but interchangeable.
The fact of the matter is that Islam offered conquered Christians a real choice. It might not have been a fair or generous one, but the choice of those Christians who chose to remain Christian was respected. They weren’t made to sacrifice to Caesar or thrown to the lions, nor were they threatened with execution if they did not convert. This was almost invariably a more generous deal than that offered to Muslims in Christian lands. Yes, Saudi Arabia does not allow non-Muslim worship on its soil. But it is unique and anomalous that way.
Irenicist
Y
yqbdd
Guest
would you say the “not have been a fair or generous one” was given by true muslims? would people say the deal “offered to Muslims in Christian lands” were from true Christians?
F
Faith101
Guest
I attended an islamic lecture once by a man who graduated from a well known school in medina…i dont know his source, but this is what he said
THere are more women in hell. There are also **more women in heaven. **
THere are more women in hell. There are also **more women in heaven. **
Y
yqbdd
Guest
i wonder how he came to that conclusion.
E
exoflare
Guest
Yeah, but only when you factor in the 72 virgins for each man that are inexplicably present there already.
EDIT: Okay, I’ll be objective then. In the whole history of planet earth it’s safe to say there will have been about 50% males and 50% females.
To keep up with this great scholar’s theory, let’s say for example, 60% of those in hell were females. 40% would be male, then.
By extension, 60% of those in heaven would have to be males, but yet the remaining 40% of all women that have ever lived on the planet (who didn’t end up damned) are going to outnumber them too somehow? Something’s gotta give.
C
Contarini
Guest
Brad,
Paying taxes is not slavery–or if it is, then we are all slaves! Non-Muslims were not necessarily treated worse than they had been by their previous rulers (Christian Roman or Zoroastrian Persian).
Irenicist,
Muslim governments did engage in forced conversion from time to time–the crazy Ismaili Shiite ruler Al-Hakim in Egypt persecuted Christians and Jews quite viciously, for instance. But it wasn’t the normal practice either for Christians or for Muslims. Up to the 15th century, I can’t see that Christian treatment of Muslims/Jews and Muslim treatment of Christians/Jews were very different. The Crusaders, for instance, adopted the “dhimmitude” system of the Muslims and applied to Muslims and Jews living in the Holy Land (i.e., they were tolerated but taxed). That’s something that I’m glad to see the movie “Kingdom of Heaven” basically got right. Christian treatment of Jews was a bit worse due to the Christian belief that Jews were guilty of Jesus’ death, but the basic policy was the same (tolerate but don’t give equal status). The Spanish expulsion of Muslims and Jews was a change for the worse.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, it is overstated. But Egypt wasn’t “empty desert.” It may not have been the core of the Christian world, but it was pretty central–a major population center and an agricultural and commercial powerhouse.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Bunk. Why is there still a Patriarch in Constantinople after more than 500 years? Muslims did not set out to massacre all unbelievers. (Neither did the Crusaders–an equally silly misconception held by many Christians, unfortunately. I watched Kingdom of Heaven with two Methodist ministers, and one of them said to me, “How come there are still Muslims in the Holy Land? Why haven’t the Crusaders killed them all?”) The Muslim goal was (is?) dominance, not elimination of all unbelievers. In a world where absolute monarchy and religious intolerance were the norm, this goal was not as vicious as it may seem to us today. The great question today for Muslims is how they are to relate the claims of the shari’ah and the “greater jihad” to the modern reality of democratic, pluralistic societies that are willing to tolerate Islam. We need to recognize that this isn’t something to which the Qur’an or Islamic tradition dictate an obvious answer (in other words, we need to refrain from throwing around prooftexts from the Qur’an to “prove” that Muslims are our enemies). Hopefully Muslims as a whole will conclude that the “greater jihad” applies only to tyrannical regimes that are oppressing Islam. But inevitably some will not–and they are our enemies.
Edwin
D
dennisknapp
Guest
To the Muslims on this thread:
What is the nature of the Qur’an?
Peace
What is the nature of the Qur’an?
Peace
D
deen
Guest
Muslims go to war to defend themselves or to free people who are being oppressed. The non-Muslims, whether in war time or not are INVITED not FORCED, from the worship of the creation to the worship of The Creator.
There are specific rules also to treat the non-muslims justly when the Muslims govern the land.
If you read the history of Islam, you will inderstand why the Muslims at the time of the Prophet has to resort to war. The problem is when people start misjudging the religion because of their prejudice and lack of correct information. Here are some sites that you can visit:
www.sultan.org
www.islamtomorrow.com
thx,
deen
Y
yqbdd
Guest
reminds me of the person i chatted with. so do you agree with what “Muslim_man” said? Also, do you believe the Bible is true or false and on what amount of correct information do you base that on? i think “Muslim_man” told me, the Bible is false unless it agrees with the quran.
D
deen
Guest
Peace also to you.
The Noble Qur’an - Part 1/2
The Qur’an is the final, infallible, direct, and complete record of the exact words of God, brought down by the angel Gabriel and firmly implanted in the heart of His final Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad. The Qur’an was learned and memorized by many of Muhammad’s companions and passed down to us via meticulous oral (primary) and written (secondary) preservation through the centuries.
The books that came before the Qur’an through God’s Prophets and Messengers were also sent by God. By revealing the Qur’an, God’s message was restored and clarified. The Qur’an is unique in a number of ways. God, The Guardian, has perfectly preserved the Qur’an and guaranteed it from corruption until the end of time.
The Qur’an is regarded, not just by Muslims but also by historians of religion, as the most authentic religious text among the world’s religions. None of the other revealed books have reached us in their original form or language. Some of them, like the scrolls that were revealed through Abraham, have not reached us at all. Over the course of time, parts of other scriptures were rewritten and some parts removed, distorting their message.
God did not allow this contamination to happen to the Qur’an because it is His final book for all of humanity until the Day of Judgment. No new Prophet or Messenger is going to be sent. If God had not protected the Qur’an, it would have never reached us in its original pure form. For this reason, God did not entrust human beings with preserving the Qur’an.
Divine preservation of the earlier scriptures was not as critical because God continued to send a succession of Prophets and Messengers to the people. The law as embodied in these older scriptures was not in its final complete form. By God’s order, Jesus came with modifications to the law, for instance, making lawful some things that had previously been unlawful without making any changes to the core concept of monotheism.
Another unique quality of the Qur’an is that it is an amazing miracle in and of itself. A miracle is a phenomenon that goes against the natural order of things and clearly demonstrates the direct intervention of God The Almighty.
to be continued…
- Status