İslam and Quran are straightness in every way. But when some can not find any argument against İslam then he attacks as if İslam impose violence. İn this way he suppose he refute İslam. I am very nervous because that issue is misused very badly. I think that problem must be discussed with all sides in a fairness way. İt can start from any point. Any question and assertion?
Who determines what “true Islam” is? There is no central authority to enforce orthodoxy. Therefore, any group - be it radical or moderate - can claim to be the “true Islam”. Because there is no central authority, who is to say that the violent Islam of al-Qaeda, ISIS, or Hamas, isn’t the “true Islam”? After all, Mohammed himself certainly wasn’t a pacifist.
The point really isn’t does Islam promote/teach hate and violence or what specifically one group or another believes the Quran states.
The point is there is genocide promoted by many groups within Islam which all people need to speak out against including Islam.
Are you Turkish? I ask because of those cool "I"s with the dots on the top.
I have no opinion on the violence of the Moslem religion/faith/doctrine. I believe it to be false on a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence.
One, it would seem Moslems believe Moses, Elijah, and the other prophets to be Arab. This, of course, is nonsense, given the Jews existed separately from the Arabs for centuries, long before Mohammed was a twinkle in his momma’s eye.
Of course, I do wonder, do Moslems believe the Jewish people were Arab? It does seem crazy to me, and I don’t remember where I heard it.
For another, that the revelation of Mohammed supersedes that of the Jewish and Christian claims - ie, the Tanakh, and the New Testament. The problem with this is: the Koran did not even exist until 500 years after Christ had lived, died, and rose again. Christianity was already 500 years old by the time Mohammed had his vision. It is exactly the same problem as we have with Joseph Smith’s “Book of Mormon”. Smith claimed he got that from an angel, too. But Christianity had already been around for 1800 years. So where did Christianity, or Judaism, jump the track? Where are the Arab prophets? I see only one: Mohammed. Where are the polytheists Smith spoke of? I saw only one: him.
For a third, someone brought up an interesting point about the angel who visited Mohammed. That was Gabriel, no? Now, when an angel or messenger of God comes, God strikes an awe into him. But not fear or terror. On the contrary, when Gabriel visited Mary, he said, “Fear not”, according to the contemporary author Luke.
As I understand it, however, Mohammed was terrified of whatever visited him in that cave - with no comfort. I doubt it was Gabriel who visited Mohammed due to the very contrast in nature between what visited Mohammed and what visited Mary.
For these reasons especially - in short, because Islam is not historically consistent - Islam is not true, as far as I can tell.
I agree that the issue is misused. There is no way for an outsider to speak legitimately of “Islam” as if it were a single thing. Obviously to you it is, because you are a Muslim and to you “Islam” is the revealed truth of God. The same is true for me with Christianity. So when I look at the many ways in which Christianity as a historical institution has been a cause of evil, I say, “that isn’t true Christianity–it’s a mistaken understanding of Christianity that leads to these atrocities.” I would expect you to do the same with Islam.
At the same time, both Christians and Muslims need to deal honestly with the fact that there are elements in both traditions, considered historically, that promote violence. Not necessarily in quite the same way. Christianity was formed as an apocalyptic sect, a persecuted minority hoping for God’s deliverance. Thus, on the one hand Christians have historically had more problems dealing with the existence of non-Christians (something presumed in the Islamic tradition of “dhimma”), but on the other hand Christians have a pacifist core and find it more conceivable to exist peacefully in a situation where they do not have power. At least that’s my impression. I don’t want to caricature, but given the world situation it’s necessary, I think, to throw some generalizations out there and discuss them.
Does Islam really promote violence? What would give you that idea?
We could always ask ISIS, Boko Haram or Al-Qaeda if Islam promotes violence. We could also go to the traditions of Mohammad himself and see if it promotes violence. I would counter and ask to have evidence that Islam does not support violence.
Fascinated by this!
The violence ?
Right now we have a situation where 1) there are several very violent groups that are operating in their parts of the world, and claiming authority from the Qur’an to do so, and 2) these groups are not being opposed in any meaningful way by any significant Muslim leaders. As long as these two conditions continue, there will be people who claim that all of Islam is violent, and it will be hard to convince them otherwise.
Did Muhammad test the spirit that spoke to him, or blindly obey out of fear?
If we do not test the spirits, then we do not know if they are fromGod or from this earth.
That second claim makes no sense to me. What Muslim leaders do you have in mind and what ought they to do that they are not doing?
The King of Saudi Arabia might be a good start. The Saudi Grand Mufti. The Grand Mufti of Egypt. Grand Ayatollah Khamanei of Iran. The point is that until the Muslim world itself rises up against these barbarian extremists, the whole Muslim world, rightly or wrongly, will be lumped in together with the extremists.
How would he have tested the spirit?
If you watch the latest Vice News on Christians, the ISIS member mentions they treat Christians fairly.
All they have to do is pay the Jizya and they are protected. I don’t see how this is any different from what Muhammad spoke of? People look at ISIS and say that they don’t represent Islam, and yet they’re the ones implementing the “protection tax” for Christians.
See Surah 9:29.
Assertion: There is no central authority in Islam that even attempts to convincingly speak for what Islam as a whole says. “Islam is One” is something that you hear quite often, but even that can mean a variety of different things. For example, some Sunni Muslims will tell you it means all of Sunni Islam is one, and the Shiites (for example) are not true Muslims, and they have some very odd teachings that are not true. The Twelfth Imam, for example. Other Sunni Muslims might say something different, and I would think that Shiites would be more inclined to use “Islam is One” as a means of saying Sunni and Shiite (among others) are united within a common faith. So what is the purpose of this assertion? To demonstrate that among Muslims who use a most common phrase “Islam is One,” even something as basic as the meaning of this phrase is not always clear, nor is the idea that any given Muslim might have when it comes to who is truly a Muslim in teaching and praxis.
And now a question. With that as your starting point, how could you expect such a nebulous group of people to speak with one voice when it comes to how Islam ought to act toward people of other religions, when they don’t even speak with one voice when it comes to the inclusion of certain people within Islam? Let me make one thing clear to everyone- when it comes to Muslims doing violence to other people, there is one particular number that far outweighs the number of Christians and Jews killed by Muslims for religiously motivated reasons. By far, the vast majority of people killed by Muslims for those sorts of reasons are Other People who Also say Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet. The type of person Most Likely to be killed by a Muslim for religious reasons is someone who prays five times daily to Allah but also has some other teachings that just shouldn’t exist. This has everything to do with wildly divergent points of view when it comes to what is true Islam, who calls themselves Muslim but aren’t really Muslim, and who deserves to die for claiming Islam as their own while being guilty of apostasy or blasphemy is some way (which I do Not mean in the sense that they convert to some other major world religion- this is a different, more common and less-clearly-defined type of apostasy that I am talking about).
With that in mind. Islam speaks with one voice on hardly anything, but I do believe there is more of a trend to act with violence in matters that Christians would look at as internal- Muslims killing other Muslims. It obviously depends on what part of the world you’re in, but I will say this- it seems to me that Muslims are more likely to act in violence to try and purify their own religion than they are to attack someone of a completely different world religion, and as far as I know, there have been major efforts in the past to try and make nice with the other Abrahamic religions at least where violence is concerned. Again, it depends on the situation and on what part of the world you’re in, but if you want to talk about a more universal and widespread pattern of violence, that would probably apply much more to Muslims who have serious problems with a different type of Muslim.
Thank you for venturing into this topic, hasantas, that takes courage. I appreciate your thoughts on my questions and assertions, I hope that my ignorance was not too bad.
And yet there seem to be no cases of Christians actually paying the tax rather than leave their homes. Yet in the early days of Islam, the bulk of Christian populations remained in place and accepted Islamic rule. There is not much evidence of widespread popular resistance to Islamic rule, in fact (speaking of the early conquests in Syria and Egypt, not of later invasions of Eastern Europe, etc.).
That seems to indicate that while the letter of Islamic law is being preserved by ISIS, they are setting the tax at such an extortionate level (and committing so many lawless acts of violence against Christians) that they are not in fact making it possible for Christians to remain under their rule.
God is our central authority-- and he sent down His guidance down in the Qur’an and its practical example through the sunnah. It’s real simple, men just try to make it difficult (not talking about you here, but of people in general). There are many muslims who make it difficult, frankly.
So would you say Turkey and Egypt are incorrect for not imposing a Jizya on Christians as Surah 9:29 says? ISIS is calling for a tax on Christians, so perhaps they got that right but don’t understand how it’s supposed to work exactly?
Or do you not take Surah 9:29 completely seriously?
Perhaps if the book wasn’t so vague and open to interpretation this wouldn’t happen so much.
Fact is, the Jizya is being enforced as it should be. Why should they as Muslims ignore an obvious command in their scripture?