PDA

View Full Version : Is Islam Inherently Violent?



Hornet
08-19-2018, 11:46 PM
Is Islam inherently violent? I was wondering because some people say that Islamic teaching promotes committing acts of violence towards others. Other people say that when people commit acts of violence in the name of Islam, they are not accurately representing what Islam teaches. Moreover, they say that radical Islam misrepresents what Islam teaches.

kiwimac
08-20-2018, 12:18 AM
No, it is not. I recommend a book entitled:
Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

Link (https://www.amazon.com/Who-Speaks-Islam-Billion-Muslims/dp/1595620176)

Leonhard
08-20-2018, 01:15 AM
There is no single unified Islam. There are several branched off versions as different from each other as the Catholic Church is from the Southern Baptist Seminar.

So it depends.

rogue06
08-20-2018, 02:38 AM
There is no single unified Islam. There are several branched off versions as different from each other as the Catholic Church is from the Southern Baptist Seminar.

So it depends.
True, but nearly all of them including the Sunni and Shia which compose well over 90% of all Muslims do advocate the use of force to spread their religion as did the founder of Islam.

Sparko
08-20-2018, 06:13 AM
That is how it started out. Mohammad started Islam by attacking caravans and converting people at the point of a sword. Seems like little has changed since then.

Christian3
08-20-2018, 07:11 AM
Is Islam inherently violent? I was wondering because some people say that Islamic teaching promotes committing acts of violence towards others. Other people say that when people commit acts of violence in the name of Islam, they are not accurately representing what Islam teaches. Moreover, they say that radical Islam misrepresents what Islam teaches.

Yes, Islam itself is violent, even though a very large percentage of Muslims are non-violent.

shunyadragon
08-20-2018, 12:35 PM
Is Islam inherently violent? I was wondering because some people say that Islamic teaching promotes committing acts of violence towards others. Other people say that when people commit acts of violence in the name of Islam, they are not accurately representing what Islam teaches. Moreover, they say that radical Islam misrepresents what Islam teaches.

No more more nor less than Judaism and Christianity in history.

Hornet
08-20-2018, 07:59 PM
No, it is not. I recommend a book entitled:

Link (https://www.amazon.com/Who-Speaks-Islam-Billion-Muslims/dp/1595620176)

Thank you for the link to the book. I'll check out the book.

Hornet
08-20-2018, 08:31 PM
There is no single unified Islam. There are several branched off versions as different from each other as the Catholic Church is from the Southern Baptist Seminar.

So it depends.

he following are quotes from the Koran with the URL to those quotes. How would different versions of Islam interpret them?

https://quran.com/4/76-86
"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak."

https://quran.com/9/29-39
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

kiwimac
08-20-2018, 08:50 PM
True, but nearly all of them including the Sunni and Shia which compose well over 90% of all Muslims do advocate the use of force to spread their religion as did the founder of Islam.

You can of course back this up?

rogue06
08-21-2018, 12:18 AM
You can of course back this up?
Have you ever read the Qur'an or the Hadiths? Do you realize that the earlier passages calling for peace were later abrogated by those calling for conversion by the sword?

kiwimac
08-21-2018, 11:23 PM
Have you ever read the Qur'an or the Hadiths? Do you realize that the earlier passages calling for peace were later abrogated by those calling for conversion by the sword?

I have read both many times. The abrogation of verses is an opinion held by some but not by all.
Muslim exegetes and jurists disagree over which and how many ahadith and verses of the Quran are recognized as abrogated,[10][11] with estimates varying from less than ten to over 500.[12][13]

Note 10:Jane McAuliffe; Barry Walfish; Joseph Goering (2010). With reverence for the word : medieval scriptural exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 448–450. ISBN 978-0-19-975575-2.

11:David S. Powers (Sept 1982), On the Abrogation of the Bequest Verses, Journal: Arabica, 29(3), Brill, pp. 246-247, 249-287

12: Fatoohi, Louay (2013). Abrogation in the Qur’an and Islamic Law. Routledge. p. 3. Retrieved 8 July 2018.

13: John Burton (1990), Islamic Theories of Abrogation, pp. 184-187, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-0108-2.

Source: Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir))

Further: (https://submission.org/abrogation.html)

Cerebrum123
08-22-2018, 05:40 AM
Wikipedia! :rofl:

rogue06
08-22-2018, 01:23 PM
I have read both many times. The abrogation of verses is an opinion held by some but not by all.

Note 10:Jane McAuliffe; Barry Walfish; Joseph Goering (2010). With reverence for the word : medieval scriptural exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 448–450. ISBN 978-0-19-975575-2.

11:David S. Powers (Sept 1982), On the Abrogation of the Bequest Verses, Journal: Arabica, 29(3), Brill, pp. 246-247, 249-287

12: Fatoohi, Louay (2013). Abrogation in the Qur’an and Islamic Law. Routledge. p. 3. Retrieved 8 July 2018.

13: John Burton (1990), Islamic Theories of Abrogation, pp. 184-187, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-0108-2.

Source: Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir))

Further: (https://submission.org/abrogation.html)
From my understanding the one that is universally agreed to have abrogated earlier peaceful passages is surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

kiwimac
08-23-2018, 01:21 AM
Wikipedia! :rofl:

Do feel free to show us where Wikipedia is incorrect.

kiwimac
08-23-2018, 02:00 AM
From my understanding the one that is universally agreed to have abrogated earlier peaceful passages is surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

There are differing opinions on this, I post one below with it's source.


The Verse of the Sword [9:5] and Abrogation

Imam Suyuti specifically discusses this verse in relation to other verses of peace, patience, and forgiving. He explains that, contrary to what some Imams believed, this is not a case of abrogation but rather of context. In certain situations, the verses of patience and forgiving apply, while in other situations the verse of the sword applies. No verse was completely abolished by another, but rather each has a specific context and applicability.

[Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur’an]
This understanding is reinforced by the eminent jurist and legal theorist Imam Zarkashi in his masterful work on Qur’anic sciences, “Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Qur’an.” He explains that many commentators of the Qur’an were incorrect in their understanding that the Verse of the Sword abrogated the various verses of patience and forbearance. This is because “abrogation” entails a complete termination of a legal ruling, never again to be implemented. This is definitely not the case with these verses. Rather, each verse entails a particular ruling conjoined to a particular context and situation. As circumstances change, different verses are to applied instead of others. No ruling is permanently terminated though, which is what is entailed by true abrogation.

He concludes his discussion by saying, “The verse of the sword by no means abrogated the verses of peace – rather, each is to be implemented in its appropriate situation.”

[Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Qur’an]
Context of the Verse of the Sword [9:5]

As you mention in your question, the Verse of the Sword deals specifically with the situation of Meccan polytheists breaking peace treaties and openly declaring war on the Muslim polity. The verse, then, commands the Muslim state to take up arms and defend itself against those that breached their covenants and attacked out of treachery.

This explanation is confirmed by the most reliable Imams of Qur’anic exegesis [tafsir], including Imam Razi, Imam Jamal, Imam Zamakhshari, Imam Baydawi, Imam Nasafi, Imam Biqa`i, and others.

[Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb; Jamal, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn; Zamakhshari, Kashshaf; Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil; Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar]

The verse, therefore, can by no means be generalized to refer to all disbelievers. Such an interpretation is not confirmed by scholars of Qur’anic interpretation. It would be both contrary to the intent of the verses as well as disastrous for the security of both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens and nation-states.

Source (http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2010/11/06/jihad-abrogation-in-the-quran-the-verse-of-the-sword/)

See also (https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/misc/comparative-religion/121623-did-9-5-abrogate-2-256)

rogue06
08-23-2018, 03:18 AM
There are differing opinions on this, I post one below with it's source.



Source (http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2010/11/06/jihad-abrogation-in-the-quran-the-verse-of-the-sword/)

See also (https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/misc/comparative-religion/121623-did-9-5-abrogate-2-256)
I'll re-post something I wrote earlier dealing with this



Surah 2:256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance, were later abrogated (superseded or repealed) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

The doctrine of abrogation is stated in the Qur'an itself (2:106): "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." So a later statement that contradicts an earlier one is thought to be better and abrogates the earlier statement[1] -- and nearly all Muslim scholars agree that the Surah Bara'ah (the ninth) was the very last surah in the Qur'an that was revealed (although a few say it was al-Nasr or surah 110) meaning what is contained in it abrogates virtually everything else.

This practice caused Muhammad's opponents to declare that he was a calumniator and didn't receive inspiration from God because he changed his mind whenever he wished. While Muslims have no problem with this, it is recognized in the Qur'an itself that others do: "And when we put one revelation in place of another revelation – and Allah knows best what he reveals – they say, 'Lo! Thou art but inventing'” (16:101).

The great Spanish Muslim philosopher Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi (1165-1240) proclaimed that surah 9:5 abrogated something like 124 of the more tolerant and peaceful Quranian ayahs.

The man who is regarded by many as the Muslim world's most respected Qur'an commentator, the revered Muslim expert on tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and faqīh (jurisprudence), Ismail ibn Kathir (c.1300-1373), declared that surah 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term. ... No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth] was revealed." He adds that "Allah's pardon for the disbelievers was repealed. Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Qatadah and As-Suddi said similarly: "It [the pardon, or forgiveness] was abrogated by the Ayah [verse] of the sword."

Today, the conservative Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid[3], who's fatawas (edicts or rulings) circulate throughout the Islamic world and are taken very seriously, in discussing surah 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion"), quoted Surahs 8:39, 9:29 along with 9:5 and declared "these and similar verses abrogate those saying there is no compulsion to become Muslim."

So warfare against non-Muslims until they were converted or utterly oppressed was mandated by Muhammad.

This is confirmed by what we read in the Hadiths including the ones venerated as being authoritative like the Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari:


Sahih Muslim 1:33: The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat."

Sahih al-Bukhari 2:24: "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:387: "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari 60:80: "The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."

Aside from the Hadiths, Ibn Ishaq (704-767/8, regarded as the earliest and most thorough of Islam's historians), who wrote the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh ("Life of the Messenger of God") relates that,


"Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited."

The text makes clear that the al-Harith[2] were only taught about Islam after their coerced "conversion," demonstrating that it was based on their fear of being slaughtered.

Further, as Ibn Ishaq relates, when Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (the leader of the chief of the Banu Abd-Shams clan of the Quraish tribe of Mecca) went to seek peace with Muhammad, he was instead told (in Muhammad's presence): "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah before you lose your head."

Likewise, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (839–923), the well respected historian and exegete of the Qur'an, best known for his Qur'anic commentary Tafsir al-Tabari and his historical chronicle Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk ("History of the Prophets and Kings") recounts in volume 9 of his History


"In this year, in the month of Rabi II (it is said in the month of Rabi’ I or in Jumada I), the Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid with an army of four hundred to the Banu al-Harith ibn Ka’b.

The Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid in the month of Rabi II, or Jumada I, in the year 10/631 to the Balharith ibn Ka’b in Najran, and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they should respond to him [with the acceptance of Islam], then he was to accept it from them, and to stay with them and teach them the Book of God, the sunnah of His prophet, and the requirements of Islam (ma’alim al-islam); if they should decline, then he was to fight them.

Khalid departed and came to them, sending out riders in every direction inviting them to Islam and saying, “O people, accept Islam, and you will be safe.” So they embraced Islam and responded to his call. Khalid stayed with them, teaching them Islam, the Book of God, and the sunnah of His prophet."

In volume 10 Tabari quotes Al-Hubab ibn al-Mundhir ibn Zayd (an advisor of Muhammad and who participated during in the meeting at saqifah during the Succession to Muhammad), who was supporting one group of Muslims in their quest for leadership after Muhammad's death, as saying:


"For you are more deserving of this authority than they are, as it was by your swords that those who were not yet converted came to obey this religion."

Finally, I'll cite Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik ("Reliance of the Traveler and Tools of the Worshiper"), one of the most highly respected works on Islamic theology and jurisprudence and based on the teachings of Abu Zakaria Muhiy ad-Din Yahya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (or just Al-Nawawi -- 1233–1277)[4]. It has something to say about jihad and forced conversion that is relevant to this discussion:


"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word “mujahada”, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

1) Fighting is prescribed for you [2:216]

2) Slay them wherever you find them [4:89]

3) Fight the idolaters utterly [9:36]

and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:


“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.”

And the hadith reported by Muslim,


“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”"


















1. AFAICT, without exception, all Islamic religious scholars state that abrogation not only included the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another (often contradictory) verse, but it also includes abolishing a provision of a verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur'an. So the verses that were later repealed and replaced remain in the Qur'an but are no longer in effect

2. Actually the Ghassanids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids) with Al-Harith ibn Jabalah being their king.

3. Popularly known for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb earlier this year because they viewed it as sacrilegious.

Cerebrum123
08-23-2018, 06:09 AM
Do feel free to show us where Wikipedia is incorrect.

Going to the page you cite shows that you very selectively citing it for a conclusion you already hold.

The Quran contains two "verses of abrogation",[4][5][24] which establish the principle in Islam that an older verse may be abrogated and substituted with a new verse,[4][5][25] a principle that has been historically accepted and applied by vast majority of Islamic jurists on both the Quran and the Sunnah.[4][5][26]

You grabbing the small handful of people who don't accept it from that page is just cherry picking.

The page is also rather misleading on what the rule about breastfeeding was used for. It was for making adults "mahram", and not targeted at children. Although it probably applied to them as well.

Sahih Muslim

Book 008, Number 3424:

' A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man. 'Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn 'Umar (the words are): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed.

:eww:

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik 30.2.12—Sahla bint Suhayl, who was the wife of Abu Hudhayfa, and one of the tribe of Amr ibn Lu'ayy, came to the Messenger of Allah, and said, "Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me when I am uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?" The Messenger of Allah said, "Give him five drinks of your milk and he will be mahram [illegal to marry] by it." She then saw him as a foster-son. Aisha, Umm al-Muminin [Mother of the Believers], took that as a precedent for whatever men she wanted to be able to come to see her. She ordered her sister, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and the daughters of her brother to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her. The rest of the wives of the Prophet refused to let anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, "No, by Allah! We think that what the Messenger of Allah ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do was only by an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No, by Allah! No-one will come in upon us by such nursing!"

:eww:

Seems Mohammed's wives, other than Aisha, and Sahla realized that breastfeeding adult men isn't exactly a good idea for their situation. It's also really disgusting.

Christian3
08-24-2018, 06:42 AM
No more more nor less than Judaism and Christianity in history.

The difference is that Christianity does not teach violence and Islam does.

Christian3
08-24-2018, 06:43 AM
Have you ever read the Qur'an or the Hadiths? Do you realize that the earlier passages calling for peace were later abrogated by those calling for conversion by the sword?

This is true.

kiwimac
08-26-2018, 06:29 PM
No, actually it is not. What IS true is that there are differing opinions about the abrogation of verses among those scholars who study these things. If we want to understand Islam we get nowhere by insisting that Islam is some kind of monolithic whole which is marching in lock-step.

rogue06
08-27-2018, 06:41 AM
Muslims have a long record of being deceitful towards those they regard as kafir (unbelievers/infidels) and will tell them all sorts of nonsense like when they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means "submission" or "surrender"), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, lie about the meaning of jihad and tell the gullible that taqqiya or idtirar is an intra-Muslim insult (the former is the Shiite term while the later is the Sunni).

Let's stick with the last one (taqqiya/idtirar) for a minute since it is pertinent to this discussion. It allows Muslims to lie about their religion.

It started out as a way for Muslims to deny their faith in order to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) and is mentioned in both the Qur'an and Hadiths[1], but it was rather quickly greatly expanded to include situations where no danger is involved but when it merely serves their interests with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels. A line in the most revered of the Hadiths, the Sahih al-Bukhari is usually cited in order to legitimize the practice, which states that Abu Darda, one of the companions of Muhammad and later governor of Syria reminded the faithful that they should "smile in the face of some people [infidels] although our hearts curse them."

I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.

Since I also mentioned lying about the meaning of jihad, let me also cover that as well.

Farid Esack, a visiting Professor at Auburn Theological Seminary, even told those gullible enough to believe him that jihad has nothing to do with waging Holy War to spread Islam but instead was all about (are you ready for this?) "resisting apartheid or working for women’s rights." Riiiiight. Jihad is all about "working for women’s rights." :lmbo:

Contrast that to what Ayatollah Khomeini who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," making it clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured ? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

Let’s see, "Those who know nothing pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless." and "Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword." Seems pretty clear[[b]2].

But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."

I wrote more about this in a response to lao a few years back that seems germane



Frankly, your assurances that "Muslims don't believe this. They don't believe 2:256 has been abrogated" will come as little comfort to the people living in the Sudan, of whom hundreds of thousands and up to a million have been murdered in recent years by Muslim jihadists intent on forcibly converting them. Likewise, similar things are happening in Indonesia with the Moluccas, as well as in Nigeria and west African countries. But they have nothing to fear because you said otherwise.

But maybe there is an explanation aside from outright duplicity that explains the contradictory messages. Perhaps this observation from Bassam Tibi (a Muslim who until his retirement was Professor for International Relations at Göttingen University as well as well as having eighteen visiting professorships at top universities such as the University of California Berkeley and Princeton along with being a visiting senior fellow at Yale University) about how Muslims consider waging war to spread Islam to really be an act of peace might explain some of the different messages:


"In this sense Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (“harb”), a word that is only used to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.”

IOW, wars instigated by Muslims to spread Islam do not count as wars to Muslims (no matter how many people are killed), but are instead meritorious efforts to liberate the world from disbelief (“jahallyya”) by its submission to Islam. Only submission brings peace, and it is the non-Muslim’s failure to submit that “provokes” war! This philosophy is frighteningly reminiscent of the old Communist definition of peace: the ceasing of resistance toward communist expansion.

The verses urging peaceful co-existence were written when Islam was still weak and vulnerable and were later abrogated when they felt they were strong enough to wage jihad and forcibly convert others to their religion (and enslave or kill those who resisted). This is not some heretical belief only maintained by radical extremists as they assure non-Muslims (remember taqqiya/idtirar), but is a constant element of mainstream Islamic thought. For instance, this is explicitly taught by all four primary schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence: the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi'i schools.

And FWIU the Shiites are even more hardline about it (see Khomeini's angry denunciation above)







1. - Al-Qur'an al-Kareem]
Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment;

Source (https://quran.com/16/106) (Here (https://tafsirq.com/en/16-an-nahl/verse-106) as well)



It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:

After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet (S) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?”The Prophet (S) excused him and said:

"Say whatever you have to say."

2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).

Chrawnus
08-27-2018, 06:48 AM
No more more nor less than Judaism and Christianity in history.

The difference between Islam and Judaism/Christianity is that while there are instances where God orders the Israelites to go to war against other people in the OT and violence and injustice has undoubtedly been perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians there are nothing comparable to the command(s?) in the Koran to spread the faith to unbelievers through coercion/violence in either the OT or NT.

kiwimac
08-27-2018, 06:47 PM
Muslims have a long record of being deceitful towards those they regard as kafir (unbelievers/infidels) and will tell them all sorts of nonsense like when they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means "submission" or "surrender"), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, lie about the meaning of jihad and tell the gullible that taqqiya or idtirar is an intra-Muslim insult (the former is the Shiite term while the later is the Sunni).

Let's stick with the last one (taqqiya/idtirar) for a minute since it is pertinent to this discussion. It allows Muslims to lie about their religion.

It started out as a way for Muslims to deny their faith in order to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) and is mentioned in both the Qur'an and Hadiths[1], but it was rather quickly greatly expanded to include situations where no danger is involved but when it merely serves their interests with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels. A line in the most revered of the Hadiths, the Sahih al-Bukhari is usually cited in order to legitimize the practice, which states that Abu Darda, one of the companions of Muhammad and later governor of Syria reminded the faithful that they should "smile in the face of some people [infidels] although our hearts curse them."

I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.

Since I also mentioned lying about the meaning of jihad, let me also cover that as well.

Farid Esack, a visiting Professor at Auburn Theological Seminary, even told those gullible enough to believe him that jihad has nothing to do with waging Holy War to spread Islam but instead was all about (are you ready for this?) "resisting apartheid or working for women’s rights." Riiiiight. Jihad is all about "working for women’s rights." :lmbo:

Contrast that to what Ayatollah Khomeini who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," making it clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured ? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

Let’s see, "Those who know nothing pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless." and "Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword." Seems pretty clear[[b]2].

But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."

I wrote more about this in a response to lao a few years back that seems germane




The verses urging peaceful co-existence were written when Islam was still weak and vulnerable and were later abrogated when they felt they were strong enough to wage jihad and forcibly convert others to their religion (and enslave or kill those who resisted). This is not some heretical belief only maintained by radical extremists as they assure non-Muslims (remember taqqiya/idtirar), but is a constant element of mainstream Islamic thought. For instance, this is explicitly taught by all four primary schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence: the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi'i schools.

And FWIU the Shiites are even more hardline about it (see Khomeini's angry denunciation above)







1. - Al-Qur'an al-Kareem]
Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment;

Source (https://quran.com/16/106) (Here (https://tafsirq.com/en/16-an-nahl/verse-106) as well)



It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:

After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet (S) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?”The Prophet (S) excused him and said:

"Say whatever you have to say."

2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).

I can quote from equally valid authorities saying exactly the opposite. The fact is that Islam, like all religion, is interpreted by humans who can make it say pretty much anything they want. This is not, btw, an argument against divine revelation but to quote Lao Tzu, "Great Tao is very straight but the people love byways."

Cerebrum123
08-28-2018, 05:07 AM
I can quote from equally valid authorities saying exactly the opposite. The fact is that Islam, like all religion, is interpreted by humans who can make it say pretty much anything they want. This is not, btw, an argument against divine revelation but to quote Lao Tzu, "Great Tao is very straight but the people love byways."

The OP asked whether Islam, not Muslims, was inherently violent. A look at the teachings themselves answers that question. rogue has given that info in spades, you have given a historically minority opinion.

rogue06
08-31-2018, 04:34 AM
I can quote from equally valid authorities saying exactly the opposite. The fact is that Islam, like all religion, is interpreted by humans who can make it say pretty much anything they want. This is not, btw, an argument against divine revelation but to quote Lao Tzu, "Great Tao is very straight but the people love byways."

I'm sure that you can find a hand full of Muslim scholars who say one thing to non-Muslims that contradicts what the most preeminent and esteemed ones have been saying to their fellow Muslims for centuries.

I've noted some of the games they play like insisting that jihad has nothing whatsoever to do with waging Holy War (The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), for one proclaims that jihad "does not mean ‘holy war,’"[1] but is as Farid Eseck, a visiting Professor at Auburn Theological Seminary declared, all about things like protecting women's rights (as they have a long and illustrious history of defending them :ahem:). Another example could be seen a couple years ago on the websites put up in English as compared to the one for Arabic with completely different messages. In the former it was all about "peace" and "freedom" with a picture of a young girl in a white hijab whereas on the site in Arabic, the one for their fellow Muslims, this was nowhere to be seen but instead featured crossed swords with the words "Make Ready" underneath. "Make ready" is a reference to Surah Al-Anfal [8:60]:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Give the gullible infidels a message of peace and freedom while telling your fellow Muslims to prepare for battle against them.

Further, often when they admit that jihad means Holy War they insist that is the "lesser" meaning and that "the greater Jihad" is all about an internal, spiritual struggle citing a passage from a hadith

Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul).

But what they don't say is that this is a later saying and not only is not found in the Hadiths considered sahih ("reliable")[2] but this source is considered at best suspect and generally viewed as spurious if not outright fraudulent (a Maudu (Fabricated) Hadith). The noted 11th century Hadith expert Imām al-Bayhaqi dismissed it saying it did not originate from Muhammad but from Ibraaheem bin Abee Ablah, a Taabi’ee, who is considered a weak source. Ibn Taymiyyah[3] rejected it outright saying

This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind

For more see Silsilah Ahaadeeth ad Da'ifah wal-Mawdu'ah (http://listofbidaas.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-greatest-jihad-is-fighting-your-own.html) written by 'Abdu l-Lah Ibnu Mani' Ar-Rooqi.

Moreover, if Jihad primarily means inner struggle, then why does the Qur'an exempt the disabled (or injured) from jihad in Surah An-Nisa [4:95-96] (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=95)? Obviously if it means inner struggle then the disabled would have no difficulty participating, but if jihad refers to Holy War (combat) then excusing them is perfectly understandable.

The fact is that Muhammad calls the highest Jihad to be the spilling of blood fighting the unbelievers, not some inner struggle. This is attested to multiple times by the sahih Hadiths. For instance the two most trusted of them Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim both contain the following passage:

I asked the Prophet, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause."

They both also declare

The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.

As well as:

Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."

Sahih al-Bukhari reports the following and later reiterates it:

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Sahih al-Muslim confirms this reporting the following and later reiterates it:

It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

The Hadith Abu Dawud also confirms it stating:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.

And the Sahih al-Muslim declares that:

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i. e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates).

And while not a Hadith, Musnad Ahmed, a celebrated collection of hadith sayings, written by Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school which is one of the four traditional Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence (fiqh) and called "True Shaykh of Islam," "Proof of the Faith," and "Seal of the Mujtahid Imams," as well as being described as "the most significant exponent of the traditionalist approach in Sunni Islam," contains the following:

A man asked [the prophet]: "..and what is Jihad?" He replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood."

So much for jihad as Holy War being the lesser jihad.

I'll finish by citing someone more modern, Abul A'la Maududi, a Pakistani Muslim philosopher, jurist and imām, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, the then largest Islamic organisation in Asia and instrumental in the foundation of Pakistan, in his Al Jihad fil-Islam ("Jihad in Islam") (2006) in which he instructed followers to employ force in pursuit of a Shari'a-based order:

These [Muslim] men who propagate religion are not mere preachers or missionaries, but the functionaries of God [so that they may be witnesses for the people], and it is their duty to wipe out oppression, mischief, strife, immorality, high handedness, and unlawful exploitation from the world by force of arms.

And

Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet. ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is 'Jihad'. ... the objective of the Islamic 'jihād' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.







1. Likewise at the U.N. panel on “Islamophobia” toward the end of 2004, Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, an Egyptian judge and law professor at Cairo University, told the "infidels" there that the notion of Holy War doesn’t exist in Islam: "In Islam and in Islamic literature there is no such thing as ‘a holy war.’ This is [a] Western invention that was attributed to us I don’t know how and why and when." He was obviously counting on nobody actually reading the Qur'an or the Hadiths.

2. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Sughra, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah with the first two having the highest status

3. while unpopular during his time and the centuries after for his condemnation of the practice of ziyara (pilgrimages to tomb-shrines of family members or close associates of Muhammad) has become one of the most influential medieval writers in contemporary Islam

Terraceth
09-02-2018, 07:10 PM
I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.But can they be demonstrated to be the same Muslims in both cases?

rogue06
09-03-2018, 03:40 AM
But can they be demonstrated to be the same Muslims in both cases?
Look at the example in post #26 (forgot to mention that was from the Muslim Brotherhood):



Another example could be seen a couple years ago on the websites put up in English as compared to the one for Arabic with completely different messages. In the former it was all about "peace" and "freedom" with a picture of a young girl in a white hijab whereas on the site in Arabic, the one for their fellow Muslims, this was nowhere to be seen but instead featured crossed swords with the words "Make Ready" underneath. "Make ready" is a reference to Surah Al-Anfal [8:60]:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.


Give the gullible infidels a message of peace and freedom while telling your fellow Muslims to prepare for battle against them.

Another one was when of the supporters of the "Ground Zero Mosque" went to Egypt he delivered a speech where he mocked his and other's claims that it would be a symbol of religious unity and cooperation pretty much saying it was amazing that the idiot infidels had fallen for that line (I posted about this in a pre-crash thread and am looking for the info again).

rogue06
09-03-2018, 05:26 AM
Yet another example of taqqiya/idtirar took place after the beheading of Nicholas Berg by Islamic terrorists when Muslims emphatically insisted such actions had no precedent in the Qur'an or Islamic tradition. For instance, Imām Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, co-founder and then chief cleric at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia and now the head of the Islamic Judiciary Council of the Shari’ah Scholars’ Association of North America, solemnly insisted that "Beheadings are not mentioned in the Qur'an at all."

Similarly, Yvonne Haddad, a professor in the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in the School of Foreign Service and the Department of History at Georgetown University, proclaimed "There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a person's head."

Likewise, Asma Afsaruddin, while an associate professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Notre Dame (now a professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at Indiana University in Bloomington and chair of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy board of directors), declared "Just because a certain group claims it is behaving in accordance with Islamic conduct, that does not mean we should believe that. There is absolutely no religious imperative for this."

Really?

A quick look at the Qur'an reveals this to be nonsense. For instance, Surah Al-Anfal [8:12] (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=12)

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Or more clearly stated in the Shakir translation (same source)

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

And there is also Surah Muhammad [47:4] (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=47&verse=4)

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them

This time the Muhammad Sarwar translation is clearer

If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads.

What's more during the massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, which lived in northern Arabia at the present site of Medina, by a force led by Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s earliest biographer, wrote in his Sīratu Rasūli l-Lāh ("Life of the Messenger of God")

The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.

Al-Tabarani, widely considered the most important hadith scholar of the 10th century states that between 600 to 900 were executed.

So Mohammad himself over saw mass decapitations and puts the lie to the explanation sometimes offered of the quranic verses that it was only a reference to fighting in battle since what happened to the Jews was after they had surrendered.

And a couple decades after Muhammad's death, when various factions started fighting (resulting in the Sunni-Shiite split), Muhammad's favorite grandson, Husayn ibn Ali, had his head chopped off after the battle of Karbala[1] in central Iraq (along with most of his family and companions, including Husayn's six month old son), at the behest of the caliph Yazid I. The head of Husayn and the 71 others also decapitated were first sent to Allah ibn Ziyad the Governor of Basra and Kufa at the latter location and subsequently Husayn's was placed upon a silver platter and sent to Yazid in Damascus, and finally sent to Cairo for inspection by the Governor of Egypt.

Nope. No tradition of decapitations in Muslim tradition. :ahem:

And it is one that has continued into modern times and not just by terrorist groups. In 1992, the Iranian government sent a "specialist" to assassinate Shapour Bakhtiar, the shah's last prime minister, in Suresnes, a suburb of Paris. While most news reports simply state that he was killed with kitchen knives, he was decapitated with them (https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/01/opinion/l-conditions-in-iran-are-far-from-improving-053392.html). When the news broke, Hashemi Rafsanjani, then president of the Islamic Republic, publicly thanked Allah for having allowed "the severing of the head of the snake."









1. Shiite Muslims commemorate the battle during a 10-day period of mourning often marked by such things as self-flagellation

shunyadragon
10-14-2018, 01:00 PM
The difference is that Christianity does not teach violence and Islam does.

Whitewash!! Indeed in history Christianity did teach violence against others in particular Jews.


For example: [cite=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies]

On the Jews and Their Lies

On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

Luther's attitude toward the Jews took different forms during his lifetime. In his earlier period, until 1537 or not much earlier, he wanted to convert Jews to Lutheranism (Protestant Christianity), but failed. In his later period when he wrote this particular treatise, he denounced them and urged their persecution.[1]

In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them"

rogue06
10-14-2018, 01:06 PM
Whitewash!! Indeed in history Christianity did teach violence against others in particular Jews.


For example: [cite=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies]

On the Jews and Their Lies

On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

Luther's attitude toward the Jews took different forms during his lifetime. In his earlier period, until 1537 or not much earlier, he wanted to convert Jews to Lutheranism (Protestant Christianity), but failed. In his later period when he wrote this particular treatise, he denounced them and urged their persecution.[1]

In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them"
The point is that to engage in such behavior one has to behave in a manner diametrically opposed to what Christ repeatedly taught, whereas this is not the case with Islam. Muhammad repeatedly advocated violence to force conversions.

One Bad Pig
10-14-2018, 01:58 PM
Whitewash!! Indeed in history Christianity did teach violence against others in particular Jews.


For example: [cite=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies]

On the Jews and Their Lies

On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

Luther's attitude toward the Jews took different forms during his lifetime. In his earlier period, until 1537 or not much earlier, he wanted to convert Jews to Lutheranism (Protestant Christianity), but failed. In his later period when he wrote this particular treatise, he denounced them and urged their persecution.[1]

In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them"
You bumped a month-old thread to cite Wikipedia? :rofl:

shunyadragon
10-14-2018, 02:13 PM
The point is that to engage in such behavior one has to behave in a manner diametrically opposed to what Christ repeatedly taught, whereas this is not the case with Islam. Muhammad repeatedly advocated violence to force conversions.

More white wash. There are citation by Paul tha Martin Luther based his view on, and no it was not contrary to the text of the NT.

shunyadragon
10-14-2018, 02:14 PM
You bumped a month-old thread to cite Wikipedia? :rofl:

Wikipedia is indeed accurate in this case. Any other source would read the same.

A month old thread is not that old.

Cerebrum123
10-14-2018, 02:20 PM
More white wash. There are citation by Paul tha Martin Luther based his view on, and no it was not contrary to the text of the NT.

You clearly don't understand the NT then. Not surprising given your other myriad of misunderstandings.

rogue06
10-14-2018, 02:26 PM
More white wash. There are citation by Paul tha Martin Luther based his view on, and no it was not contrary to the text of the NT.
Not. Even. Close. :no:

One Bad Pig
10-14-2018, 03:07 PM
Wikipedia is indeed accurate in this case. Any other source would read the same.

A month old thread is not that old.
Just noting your uncritical use of sources, is all. Luther is, um, not normative for Christianity in general. He's not even normative for Protestants.

KingsGambit
10-14-2018, 04:20 PM
Just noting your uncritical use of sources, is all. Luther is, um, not normative for Christianity in general. He's not even normative for Protestants.

I think it's a shame that a man who called for Jews' houses to be burned is uncritically considered a hero by many Protestants. Though I honestly think that most laymen just don't know about that.

(Incidentally, I dismissed all Christian anti-Semitism as stupid based on the idea that Jesus was Jewish on a college paper that was given an A by my openly Jewish professor :lol: )

One Bad Pig
10-14-2018, 06:17 PM
I think it's a shame that a man who called for Jews' houses to be burned is uncritically considered a hero by many Protestants. Though I honestly think that most laymen just don't know about that.
Yeah, I don't think many people are aware of Luther's anti-Semitic writings; that's something of a mitigating factor.

I also think it's a shame that he tore apart the Roman Catholic Church. While I agree with his questions regarding indulgences, he could've handled things in a rather more diplomatic manner (of course, the same could be said about the split between East and West in 1054).

rogue06
10-15-2018, 12:12 AM
Yeah, I don't think many people are aware of Luther's anti-Semitic writings; that's something of a mitigating factor.
Many in my family are Lutheran and few were aware of it and those who were only had a vague understanding that he was anti-Semitic and no idea how much so.

Abu Njoroge
03-11-2019, 01:47 PM
Islam meens submit or surrender to God.To me I see some Islamic countries are living in the past.There times in history that Jews and Christian's killed others for heresy.Muslims believe a lot of things that were common place in the old testament.stoning among other things.To me true Islam is addherance to the Great commandment and the first commandment.like the Jewish faith Muslims believe one needs no go between to pray are speek with God.You shall have no God but the Lord your God.Allah is One.El is One.YHVH is One.Same God different understanding.