Is Islam really the religion of peace their followers claim it to be?

[Phi for All]

Also one should note that it is not necessarily religion that causes the issues, though it is a convenient rallying point for extremists to push radical agendas. The more important thing to look at is stability of a region and wealth (as well as distribution thereof).

 

I would also add education to the list. A secular education helps overcome much of the ignorance that fuels violence. Rational explanations of natural phenomena go a long ways to helping people understand the world around them. Education removes much of the frustration that comes with trusting your life to unknown, unseen forces.

[CharonY]

Oftentimes wealth and higher level of education go hand in hand. But yes, that is an excellent point

[Phi for All]

Oftentimes wealth and higher level of education go hand in hand.

 

This is true, and oddly enough it seems that a fundamentalist stance is usually what breaks up that relationship. In the US, at least, we have a lot of wealthy businessmen who still think evolution is "just a theory". Texas is very wealthy, but there is a large constituency that is against teaching critical thinking in the classroom because they believe it erodes their authority as parents. It's causing their children to question concepts the parents don't want questioned, mainly religion but also corporal punishment and lifestyle choices.

 

I'm probably guilty of more leniency when it comes to Islamic followers in uneducated countries. I truly feel their lack of secular education is largely responsible for their adherence to religious fundamentals. It's all they know, it's all they're being taught, they have little else. The promise of paradise at the end of a miserable life is enticing. But when you learn that you aren't being punished by your god, that you simply need to keep your babies cleaner, and boil the water before you drink, it means you're not so much at the mercy of the unknown, you can have control of your life. Perhaps this will help them learn that violence is a poor option.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

This thread is locked for review.

 

The thread has violated the following rules:

- Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.

- The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

And possibly also:

- Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Staff have decided to keep the thread open for the time being.

Members should keep previous moderator notes in this thread in mind while responding. It's worth noting that criticisms of religion are acceptable,provided that they are founded in facts and are not presented in an inflammatory manner that could be perceived as a little more than attack. In other words, keep the discussion as productive as it has been in the last few posts and play nice.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

SlavicWolf

 

I have hidden your post for two reasons.

 

Firstly, it is completely at odds with the very sensible request from Hypervalent Iodine immediately above that posts are not presented in an inflammatory manner; your message is not temperate and in its very first paragraph it makes sweeping generalisations that are both unsupportable and deliberately incendiary. We have a Religion Forum to allow debate on Religious matters whilst subjecting that debate to the rigour that we apply to our Science - we do not want demagoguery and rabble-rousing; rhetoric has no real place in Science and we don't want it here either.

 

Secondly, it's a huge copypasta from an external website with no reference and no sourcing. Do not do this for any subject again!

 

Do not respond within the thread to this moderation note. You can report this message if you wish to question it.

 

[SlavicWolf]

Someone in this thread asked about a reliable list of Islamic terror attacks. I got one - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ has a list of more than 22000 Islamic terrorist attacks that took place since 2001. The list is updated and corrected every day, every case in meticulously researched, so the list does not include violence committed by nominal Muslims for non-religious reasons (such as criminal acts) or casualties due to combat. One pro-Islamic site (LoonWatch) has revieved a list of attacks listed on TROP and they only had doubts about the reliability of ca. 7% of them. TROP founder replied to their doubts and in the end only one case was deemed dubious - which gave a margin of error of roughly 0.5%

 

So there we go. I set up a challenge for every willing person - if you want to prove that Muslims are no more likely to become terrorists than members of other religious denominations - find or create a list of 1000 (a thousand) terrorist attacks pulled off by members of any religion other than Islam since 2001. Every attack listed must fulfill the following criteria:

- It must result in at least one fatality

- The target were civilians

- It must have been committed explictly for religious reasons (no ordinary crimes)

 

TROP has 22,000 attacks listed - I demand only 1,000 - a mere 1/22th of that. Many Muslims have been trying to create a list of such terrorist attacks and so far all of them fell into two categories.

 

1. Lists listing crimes such as "a bigoted racist drew a swastika on a mosque in a city X!" or "a prejudiced loon didn't hire X because she was Muslim!". LoonWatch and American Council for Islamic Relations have such lists. God, if you do exist, have mercy... Such crimes DO constitute a breech of law - but they are all trivial compared to the crimes against non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim countries.

2. Lists that widen the definition of religious terrorism to the point of laughability. One Islamic site has made a list of several dozen of what they called "Christian terrorist attacks", perpetuated since 1950s up to the present day - but that list indluded attacks by Columbian drug cartels and leftist organisations such as FARC. Classifying acts of communist terror as "Christian terrorism" means widening the definition of religious terrorism to such an extent that it becomes meaningless.

 

I'm waiting.

Edited January 25, 2014 by SlavicWolf

[swansont]

I set up a challenge for every willing person - if you want to prove that Muslims are no more likely to become terrorists than members of other religious denominations - find or create a list of 1000 (a thousand) terrorist attacks pulled off by members of any religion other than Islam since 2001.

 

To what end? It doesn't address the topic introduced in the OP. All it would seem to do is support a strawman you've introduced. I thought we were trying to avoid logical fallacies.

[SlavicWolf]

There are two ways to evaluate whether a religion is peaceful - either evaluate it's teachings or evaluate violence done by it's members in the name of that religion. These two are closely related.

 

The teachings of Muhammad were evaluated dozens of times and there are people far more learned than me - Robert Spencer, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali - these are all people who wrote more than enough about the nature of Islam. The last two are actually former Muslims - they rejected Islam knowing that they may even die for doing it. Both are Islam's outspoken critics.

watch this:

This is a discussion about a high school textbook published in Egypt which said that a person who leaves Islam may be killed and eaten(sic!!!). It wasn;t some patient of some mental health institutuion that invented it - it were scholars of Al Azhar university - one of the oldest and most respected institutions of Islamic educations in the world. When I first read about this sickening ruling, I thought it was a joke. But later it got to Egyptian TV. Killing apostates was a law in Islam since Muhammad but eating them? It is beyond even my imagination.

Edited January 25, 2014 by SlavicWolf

[iNow]

There are two ways to evaluate whether a religion is peaceful - either evaluate it's teachings or evaluate violence done by it's members in the name of that religion.

By this metric, Christianity is also not peaceful. Abortion clinic bombings come immediately to mind, as do these sections of the holy book:

 

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

http://www.evilbible.com/BiblicalIntolerance.htm

 

Now, in response I suspect you'll introduce a no true scotsman fallacy accompanied by a bit of hand waving and special pleading.

Edited January 25, 2014 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

Remember that quite a lot of the old testament law is also reflected in Islam as well as Christianity.

So any examples of warmongering from OT Christianity also counts as war mongering in Islam.

 

The comparison with Christianity etc (which is also pretty barbaric) isn't really relevant.

The question is whether Islam is a religion of peace.

Not many religions are peaceful, many have been responsible for wars.

 

What I want to know is why the followers of a religion (there are plenty of examples to choose from) say that it's peaceful when their scripture shows that it isn't.

 

Is it the same sort of doublethink that lets them believe in the scriptures in the first place?

[SlavicWolf]

1. I explained that before. why should I ever need to repeat myself? How many attacks on abortion clinics have there been? How many people have died? How does it compare to dozens of bombings, beheadings and mutilations that take place each and every month, explictly in the name of Allah?

 

2. I laugh hard when people and confronted with violence in Islamic texts and as a response they bring violence in the Bible. The stories in the Bible are just fables, a half-historical chronicle - written by fallible humans. Christians are not bound by Old Testament law and Jews simply reject that violence as error of the scribes or simply a historical anachronism. Muslims don't have such a luxury. The Quran is a literal word of God and Muhammad is a perfect man. Every single law prescribed Muhammad must be followed by all Muslims for all times, no matter how bizarre or evil they seem to be. Muslims simplu can't question Muhammad. It is Muhammad who defines what is good and what isn't, not Muslims.

 

Consider the following hadith:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

 

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:

 

 

Narrated Abu Burda:

Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"

 

An except from a manual of Islamic law published by Al Azhar University in 1991:

Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96)

 

Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed

 

Muslims can't discard this law. They can't because it was ordered by the perfect man and are therefore, the best possible. No Muslim can say that they aren't perfect unless they question Muhammad. But then they won't be Muslims anymore.

 

Do you ever imagine the consequences of such a barbaric law? Sunnis and Shiites constantly accuse each other of apostasy. Alawites from Syria are accused of apostasy by Sunni rebels - and therefore are deserving of death. Roughly 90% of all Islamic violence occurs becasue the perpetrarors accuse victims of some horrible things - such as apostasy or blasphemy (which is also a capital crime in Islam.)

Edited January 25, 2014 by SlavicWolf

[iNow]

Like I anticipated. A bunch of hand waving and special pleading.

[John Cuthber]

In principle, all the Abrahamic religions accept that

"Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses."

(Hebrews 10 26-29)

 

and "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

(Deuteronomy 13: 6-11)

 

They all advocate murder of apostates and unbelievers, so it's impossible to distinguish Islam from Christianity on that score.

[SlavicWolf]

They don't have to because Christians and Jews can explain such judgements as simply historical anachronism* while Muslims can't. The law of death penalty for apostasy is still in place.

 

Some people may say "but there is a lot of Muslims who don't support such a thing!". Yes, there are. The problem is that if a person does not support this law, then he/she is not a Muslim. Most of so called good Muslims are people who simply don't know their religion well enough. If they read reliable texts, they would either become radicals or leave the religion altogether.

 

*Interpreting the Bible literally is a sin called "bibliolatry".

Edited January 26, 2014 by SlavicWolf

[John Cuthber]

Nope, strict Christians should follow the law.

Christ told them to.

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"

and

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

(Have you actually looked at the Bible?)

 

They choose not to do so, but, in doing so, they bastardise their faith.

The followers of Islam could do the same.

The difference is not due to what the scriptures say (it can't be- because it's the same Book).

The difference is in how those rules are interpreted. That's down to local politics.

[SlavicWolf]

So how many Christian theologians advocate stoning people for adultery? Or killing them for working on sunday? I know only one church that does that and it's a minor fundamentalist church in America.

 

Muslims still advocate these laws. The greatest scholars of Islam are in favor of them. Yusuf Al Qardawi said a few years ago that if Islam had gotten rid of death penalty for apostasy, it (Islam) would not exist today. And he did not say it do apologize for it but to defend it.

Edited January 26, 2014 by SlavicWolf

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Ok Enough

 

Everyone and SlavicWolf in particular - this thread is degenerating into Christianity vs Islam and that is not a debate we are going to allow. Either the barely concealed religious-hatred is put to one side or the thread is closed. Most posts since the last modnote have been a mixture of cherry-picking quotes, fallacies galore, soap-boxing, and half-truths. There was intense moderator discussion on this thread - and the decision, which I strongly advocated, to keep it open and allow this important debate is now looking flawed. The use of avowedly anti-Islamic sites purporting to provide evidence is not acceptable; there are statistics from most countries and groupings (such as EU) that are readily available and are not tainted by a desire to inculcate religious hatred.

 

There is a place here for reasoned, hatred-free, and lively but not overly-emotional debate concerning religion - however, we will not allow any part of the forum to be used to rehearse tired and hackneyed bigotry of any persuasion.

 

[Alan McDougall]

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/founders.htm

 

Perhaps we should compare the saying of the two prophets that started Islam and Christianity and make up our own minds on who preached peace and who did not! "If you claim to be a Christians you should never, ever sprout hatred and spite, because this is opposite of what Jesus preached during his life"

 

(Those are my comments above Alan McDougall)

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/founders.htm

JESUS/ MUHAMMAD?

 

A COMPARISON OF THE FOUNDERS
OF THE WORLD'S TWO LARGEST RELIGIONS

by Silas

INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

Jesus founded Christianity, Muhammad founded Islam. These are the two largest religions in the world with about 1.8 billion and 1.1 billion members respectively. Without a doubt, these men have affected humanity in a powerful way. As religious leaders they laid down many principles to live by.

Both religions have much in common, but differ strongly in other aspects. What were the founders' characters like? How do they compare with each other? What does the Bible and the Quran say about Jesus? What did their teachings and actions induce their followers to do? This article answers these questions by comparing and contrasting some of their actions and teachings.

 

NOTE: I will use the Bible, usually the New International Version (NIV)[1] as the source for Jesus' words and actions. I will quote from the Quran, usually N.J. Dawood's translation [2], and the Hadiths of Bukhari [3] and Muslim [4], the "Life of Muhammad" [5], which is a translation done by A. Guillaume of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah", the "History" of Tabari [6], and the Sunan of Abu Dawud [7]. Generally, the Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim are the sayings and deeds of Muhammad, and are recognized as the most authentic by Islamic scholarship. Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah" is recognized as the best extent biography of Muhammad, and Tabari's "History" is the best historical account of Muhammad and the early Islamic community available.

 

SOME OF THEIR LAST WORDS

 

JESUS: "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Luke 23:34. (said while dying on the cross at Calvary after being betrayed and sentenced to die for no legitimate reason).

 

 

MUHAMMAD: "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets." Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427 [Muhammad had been poisoned years earlier by a Jewish woman whose husband was killed by the Muslims and the poison had slowly worked its effect. He said this while dying in the arms of his wife Aisha].

 

COMMENT by Author

As I've studied both of these men's lives, I find that the above comparison details some of the strongest character differences. Here are their dying words, words that will mark the end of their lives. Christ asks God to forgive His enemies, while Muhammad utters a bitter curse against those who rejected his assertion of prophethood. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Muhammad to ask Allah to guide the Christians and Jews while he was dying?

 

SLAVERY

 

JESUS: had no slaves. Jesus taught to do to others as you would have them do to you. Jesus had no slaves, and it is apparent from His teachings that He would not have slaves. He freed men, not enslaved them. No one wants to be enslaved against their will.

 

Further, Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1:8-10,

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers..."

From these verses, we see that forcibly enslaving people, and trading in slaves, are against Christian teachings.

 

MUHAMMAD: was a slaver. He owned and sold many slaves, both male and female. He said Allah allowed him and his Muslim followers to have sex with their female slaves when the men wanted to. Reference the Quran, Sura (chapters) 33:50, 52, 23:5, and 70:30. Slaves are considered "booty" for Muslims when taken in raids, thus they are Muslim's property. Muhammad felt proud and conceited enough to enslave thousands of people.

 

The great Islamic historian Tabari wrote regarding Muhammad's sexual intercourse with his slave Mariyah; "he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property." [Tabari, Volume 39, page 194].

 

Muhammad made slaves out of the people he raided and fought against. Most notable were the women and children survivors of Muhammad's massacre of the 800 males (young teens and up) of the Jewish Banu Quraydhah, Sura 33:26. The Sirat Rasulallah - the earliest biography of Muhammad, gives much more detail on pages 461 and on. Shortly after massacring the Jewish males Ibn Ishaq wrote on page 466:

"Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth", (Muhammad and his family got one fifth of all the spoils of war). . . Then the apostle sent Sa'd . . . with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons."

Bukhari also documents Muhammad owning many slaves - vol. 5, # 541 & vol. 7, # 344. Muhammad had Negro, Arab, Egyptian, male, female, Jewish, Christian, and pagan Arab slaves.

Muhammad also allowed slaves to be harshly beaten. When his wife was being examined as to whether or not she committed adultery, Muhammad's son in law, Ali, brutally beat Aisha's slave in front of Muhammad, in order to insure that she tell the truth about Aisha. Here is the quote from Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah", translated as "The Life of Muhammad", by A. Guillaume, (page 496):

"So the apostle called Burayra (Aisha's slave) to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating saying, "Tell the apostle the truth,"....

Muhammad did not stop Ali from beating the slave.

Muhammad also allowed newly captured female slaves to be used for sex. From the Hadith of Sahih Muslim vol. 2, #3371

 

Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born".

And vol. 3, #3432

 

Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).

COMMENT

Jesus' teachings would preclude people from forcibly enslaving people. "Do to others as you would have them do to you" - Luke 6:31. On the other hand, Muhammad and his soldiers went out and attacked many people and forced them into slavery.

 

PUNISHING SINNERS WHO WERE WILLING TO REPENT

 

JESUS

 

From John 8:2-11

At dawn He (Jesus) appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap in order to have a basis to accuse Him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with His finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one sir", she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

 

MUHAMMAD

 

From the Hadith of Abu Dawud, #4428

"Buraidah said: "A woman of Ghamid came to the Prophet and said: "I have committed fornication", He said: "Go back". She returned and on the next day she came to him again, and said: "Perhaps you want to send me back as you did to Maiz b. Malik. I swear by Allah, I am pregnant." He said to her: "Go back". She then returned and came to him the next day. He said to her: "Go back until you give birth to the child." She then returned. When she gave birth to the child she brought the child to him, and said: "Here it is! I have given birth to it." He said: "Go back, and suckle him until you wean him." When she had weaned him, she brought him to him with something in his hand which he was eating.

 

The boy was then given to a certain man of the Muslims and he (the prophet) commanded regarding her. So a pit was dug for her, and he gave orders about her and she was stoned to death. Khalid was one of those who were throwing stones at her. He threw a stone at her. When a drop of blood fell on his cheek, he abused her. The prophet said to him: "Gently, Khalid. By Him in Whose hand my soul is, she has repented to such an extent that if one who wrongfully takes an extra tax were to repent to a like extent, he would be forgiven". Then giving command regarding her, prayed over her and she was buried.""

 

COMMENT

Here is a stark contrast between the two men. When Jesus dealt with the adulterous woman, He did not condemn her. He commanded her to go and sin no more. He gave her a chance for redemption – the very model of mercy.

How many people have started out down the wrong street, but years later were able to turn their lives around? Not only in that, but they have been able to help others turn their lives around as well? Jesus offered this chance to the woman. Under the law, the Jews could have stoned the woman to death, but Christ's love and compassion was much greater.

 

Muhammad’s approach was much different. At first, he tried to dismiss the adulterous woman. She confessed her sin to him, but he refused to hear her and deal with it. Instead, he told her to go back. This occurred three times. Three times Muhammad ran from dealing with the situation. Finally, after the women's consistent confession, Muhammad was forced to confront her sin. He allowed her to give birth, suckle and then wean the child, which could have taken 1 to 3 years. Then she returned and Muhammad had her killed.

This woman not only confessed, but she repented. She was a good mother to her child and she was a responsible member of her community. Couldn't Muhammad have forgiven her as he had so many other types of sinners? Muhammad allowed many others off for the sins they committed. Even people who had killed his family members were forgiven if they confessed he was a prophet of God and there was only one God. But Muhammad was unable to deal compassionately with the woman. He couldn't see beyond his nose. He couldn't see that she had turned her life around, properly raised her child, and was doing the right thing. Muhammad's shortsightedness caused her death.

Muhammad did not even deal with it after Judaic law. In Moses' law, the adulterer was to be stoned to death. Muhammad did not do so, he gave the woman several years to live. Even if you take into account the respite to give birth to a child, Muhammad waited until the woman weaned the child. Surely there were other women who could have nursed the child. Muhammad simply dealt with the situation as best, (or not best) as he could; Muhammad made up his own rules as he went along.

WAR - TREATMENT OF ADVERSARIES

JESUS: In Luke 9:54, 55 Jesus rebuked His disciples when they wanted to destroy a town that rejected Him. Also, in Luke 22:52, Jesus' disciples started to fight against those that came to arrest Jesus, He stopped them, and healed a man injured in the fight.

 

MUHAMMAD: told his followers to aggressively make war on non-Muslims: 9:5, 29. Sura 9 was one of the last Suras given by Muhammad. Initially, when Muhammad's group was weak, he ordered his followers to try to get along with other people. After the Muslims became powerful, he ordered them to spread Islam by force. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman continued his wars of aggression. A few of Muhammad’s actions include:

The massacre of approximately 800 Jewish male captives: (noted in Sura 33:26).

He ordered the execution of 10 people when he took Mecca. Three of these people were slave girls who had previously made fun of Muhammad. Refer to "The Life of Muhammad", pages 551 and 552.

He attacked the Jewish city of Khaibar where he took one of the Jewish leaders and tortured him to force him to tell where some buried money was. After the man refused to talk, and was near death, Muhammad ordered that his head be cut off. Refer to

 

"The Life of Muhammad", page 515.

COMMENT

No one would envision Jesus ordering the execution of slave girls for mocking him years earlier. He brought a better message and a better way of life. No one would imagine Jesus having a man tortured to reveal buried money. His life was free of greed.

Muhammad could be a very brutal man. Does killing a few slave girls for mocking him seem justified?. Is having them killed for that justified? Does it seem rational or sensible? Does torturing a man just to get money portray the type of man society should follow, obey, and emulate?

 

WOMEN & MARRIAGE

 

JESUS: was not married. He healed women, forgave women, and encouraged women. The New Testament teaches that husbands should love their wives and not be harsh with them: Col. 3:19, Eph. 5:25, that men and women are equal in Christ - Gal 3:28, that they should be treated with respect - 1 Pet 3:7.

 

MUHAMMAD: commanded his male followers to beat their disobedient wives. He gave men the right to beat their wives who persistently disobeyed them.

Sura 4:34 "As those you fear may be rebellious admonish, banish them to their couches, and beat them."

The above verse was revealed in connection with a woman who complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face, which was still marked by the slap. At first Muhammad said to her "Get even with him", but then added 'Wait until I think about it". Later on the above verse was revealed, and Muhammad added, 'We (He and the woman) wanted one thing, Allah wanted another.

 

The Hadith also said much about women:

Muhammad said that women are generally so evil, that they will make up the majority of people in to hell. Continuing with Bukhari,

 

Vol. 1, #301: "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women). They [women] asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands."

Bukhari Vol. 1, #28: "The Prophet said, "I was shown the Hell-fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?), he replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good done to them...."

 

Sahih Muslim says they are the minority in Paradise:

 

Volume 4, #6600: "Imran Husain reported that Allah's messenger said: Amongst the inmates of Paradise the women would form a minority."

By putting these two Hadith together, we find that Muhammad said that women were the minority in Paradise, and the majority in hell. Therefore it is not a statistical ratio due to the possibility that there are more women than men. Muhammad viewed women as more sinful than men. And the reason more women are in hell is because the women were ungrateful to their husbands!

 

Muhammad also declared that women are less intelligent than men:

 

Bukhari, Volume 1, #301:

".

Then he (Muhammad) passed by the women and said, "O women, give alms as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." they asked, "Why is it so O Allah's messenger?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's messenger, what is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence....."

 

COMMENT

Christ's teachings show that women and men are equal in God's sight. "There is neither male nor female in Christ". Socially, Christ dealt with them according to the Father's mercy.

Muhammad positioned females as in between slave and free. Even today in Islamic countries women are regulated to being second class and controlled by the males. This is because of where Muhammad placed them in his teachings.

 

PRAYER

 

JESUS: taught His disciples to pray simply, and from the heart. God listens to the heart, not the outward form:

Matt: 6:5-13: "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words..."

 

Jesus taught that true prayer was an expression of relationship and communication with a heavenly Father.

 

MUHAMMAD: taught formalized prayer ritual: (quotes are from Bukhari, Vol. 1)

488 - passing in front of a praying person annuls his prayer

489 - it's a sin to pass in front of someone while they're praying

660 - don't raise from prayer before the Imam {Muslim cleric leading the formal, ritualized prayers), or God will turn your face into a donkey's face

685 - if the prayer rows (of men) aren't straight, God will alter your faces

690 - if the prayer rows aren't straight, the prayer is not good

717 - if you look up during prayer, you'll lose your eyesight

759 - if you don't perform the bowing perfectly, your prayers are not accepted

These men were quite different. Both have left their marks upon the world. Christians follow Christ, Muslims follow Muhammad. Both claimed to have been from God, but their teachings and actions contradict each other.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] The New International Study Bible, pub. by Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.

[2] The Quran, translated by N.J. Dawood, pub. by Penguin Books, London, England.

[3] "Sahih Al-Bukhari" - "The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari", translated by Dr. M Khan, pub. by Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India.

[4] "Sahih Muslim", translated into English by A. Siddiqi, pub. by International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

[5] "Sirat Rasulallah" - "The Life of the Prophet of God", translated as "The Life of Muhammad" by A. Guillaume, pub. by Oxford University Press, London, England.

[6] "The History of Tabari", published by SUNY, Albany, New York, USA.

[7] "Sunan of Abu Dawud", published by Al-Madina Publications, New Delhi, India.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SlavicWolf]

BTW How can quoting from canonical Muslim sources ever be considered as "spreading hate"? Sites ran by Muslims aren't a reliable source of info because they are aimed at converting westerners, and therefore, they try to create an illusion of common ground.

 

 

BTW: Statistics aren't reliable source of info because most people are just nominal Muslims. Some even hold views contrary to those described in Muslim texts - such as the view that Muhammad was horribly persecuted in Mecca.

 

 

Consider that many Muslims would not even think of amputating a thief's hand. Does this mean that it is against Islam to do so? Of course not! In fact, it is clearly mandated in both the Qur'an (5:38) and the example set by Muhammad according to the Hadith (Bukhari 81:792). As individuals, Muslims make their own choices about which parts of their religion they practice.

However, even though believers may think whatever they want about what Islam says or doesn't say, it doesn't change what Islam says about itself. As a documented ideology, Islam exists independently of anyone's opinion. As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interprets it.

Edited January 26, 2014 by SlavicWolf

[John Cuthber]

"From these verses, we see that forcibly enslaving people, and trading in slaves, are against Christian teachings."

No we can't.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

 

" teachings show that women and men are equal in God's sight."

Did you ever read the bit about Eve?

and so on.

A plague on both their houses; they are both deeply evil.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Alan

Immediately after a modnote saying we were not going to put up with a Christianity vs Islam you post the above. In future read the modnotes and follow the instructions. There will be no further requests.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Ok Enough

 

Everyone and SlavicWolf in particular - this thread is degenerating into Christianity vs Islam and that is not a debate we are going to allow. .

 

 

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/founders.htm

 

Perhaps we should compare the saying of the two prophets that started Islam and Christianity and make up our own minds on who preached peace and who did not! ...

 

SlavicWolf

"Statistics aren't reliable source of info because most people are just nominal Muslims" - Do you realize how that reads? When conspiracy such as that raises its head it is probably time to call it a day.

 

You are stereotyping and allowing prejudice to rule your reason. We have no way of discussing the matter, perhaps understanding more, and coming to reasoned decisions because the majority of your argument is rank characterisation, it is clear to any observer that you have come with an agenda not an open mind, and you seem determined to have this thread closed.

 

To answer your direct question - cherry picking quotes, implying acceptance of the whole of an idea when in fact it is contextual and partial, and using information out of place so as to deliberately skew a readers understanding. Now to make a point of my own - do you not realise that claiming all sites run by Muslims have an aim of conversion is ridiculous prejudice.

 

BTW How can quoting from canonical Muslim sources ever be considered as "spreading hate"? Sites ran by Muslims aren't a reliable source of info because they are aimed at converting westerners, and therefore, they try to create an illusion of common ground.

 

 

BTW: Statistics aren't reliable source of info because most people are just nominal Muslims. Some even hold views contrary to those described in Muslim texts - such as the view that Muhammad was horribly persecuted in Mecca.

 

 

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODNOTE!

 

Get back on to a sensible heading or the next mod action will almost certainly be to close this thread.

 

[Phi for All]

However, even though believers may think whatever they want about what Islam says or doesn't say, it doesn't change what Islam says about itself. As a documented ideology, Islam exists independently of anyone's opinion. As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interprets it.

 

This statement again condemns Islam based on a universally accepted premise that you have yet to support in a meaningful way. And you won't be able to either. In your own words, "[islam] may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interprets [sic] it." I don't think anyone could approach the study of a religion the size of Islam objectively without a focus on the practices of its followers.

 

Your arguments are based on doing exactly what you fear Muslims are doing, taking a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam's teachings. I've seen others do this with Christianity as well, pointing to grisly verses in the Bible and demanding that it be adhered to immediately or a paradox will be declared.

 

Look, I was really hoping to rationally discuss (with other minds that aren't already completely made up) why so many people fear this religion. I knew if we dialed back the hate-speech and got rid of the generalizations and conspiracy and prejudice in our arguments that this discussion would eventually get around to something really interesting. I still see a lot of copy/paste from the haters, but I'm seeing less of that and more original thought and I like it, I really do. I can't talk to people about this who only want to win an argument; I want some real input without the rhetoric.

 

I observe a small minority of Muslim worshipers gaining worldwide infamy through violent means, often quoting religious scripture. I've also observed that there is a great deal of misinformation spread about Islam that supports political and commercial agendas (e.g., much of the propaganda the Bush administration used to promote an attack on Iraq, naming military operations with Islamic connotations - Operation Infinite Justice). I also observe that the majority of Muslims I know and those who live in communities alongside others cultures and religions don't agree with the actions of the fundamentalists. Pointing at verses in the Quran and demanding they be interpreted literally isn't something these people do, so I have to question any stance that says this has to be the benchmark to determine if their religion is basically peaceful or not.

[SlavicWolf]

So there is my question - how do you determine which verses must be interpreted literally, which ones can be but not necessarily and which cannot be interpreted literally? Because I see that many so called apologists say that violent verses must be interpreted metaphorically while the peaceful ones must be above such an interpretation. For me it looks like a double standard - if you believe some book to be a literal, perfect word of God, then how can you treat various verses in various ways? You either interpret all of them as literal or all of them as metaphorical.

 

So called radical Muslims do not have to engage in any theological acrobatics. They know well that the violent quranic verses far outweigh the peaceful ones, they also know that the peaceful verses are abrogated (nullified) by later, violent ones. Read the chronologically latest chapters of the Quran (sura 5 and 9) and you will know why Islam has been anything but peaceful since it's inception.

[Phi for All]

So there is my question - how do you determine which verses must be interpreted literally, which ones can be but not necessarily and which cannot be interpreted literally? Because I see that many so called apologists say that violent verses must be interpreted metaphorically while the peaceful ones must be above such an interpretation. For me it looks like a double standard - if you believe some book to be a literal, perfect word of God, then how can you treat various verses in various ways? You either interpret all of them as literal or all of them as metaphorical.

 

So called radical Muslims do not have to engage in any theological acrobatics. They know well that the violent quranic verses far outweigh the peaceful ones, they also know that the peaceful verses are abrogated (nullified) by later, violent ones. Read the chronologically latest chapters of the Quran (sura 5 and 9) and you will know why Islam has been anything but peaceful since it's inception.

 

It's been shown that literal interpretations of other religious texts make those religions look violent as well. Lots of raping, pillaging and murdering being condoned in all the Abrahamic churches. If you apply this argument to one, it MUST be applied to the others. Literal interpretation is NOT supporting your argument. Do you see that?

 

And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop telling me what "so called radical Muslims" know, unless you've questioned them all. This may be the religion section, but it's a section on a science forum, and we need to be more rigorous and less general than this. Please stop trying to win the argument and just talk to us. Why do you assume a minority sets the tone for how the majority worships their deity? Isn't it much more likely that the majority fall into the broader moderate category, as is the case in most large populations?

 

Your argument seems to say that fringe elements represent the true nature of a large group, and historically that's been shown false many times. I'm not saying that Islam is not capable of being used violently, but you're not doing a good job of supporting the claim that Islam's followers are all inherently violent because of the religion they were born into.