Tolerant and Humane Aspects of Muslim Civilisation

[Ayura]

(Sorry - this is partially Military related, but I'm not exactly sure if this belongs in the political discussion or off-topic so I just posted it here. Mods, feel free to move this.)

Muslims, as a minority in Western societies, have come under severe strain since September 11th, 2001, in particular. The Italian Prime Minister, just like the deceased Dutch right winger Pym Fortyn and scores more in their wake, have engaged in open diatribes against Islam, labelling it a faith of darkness, a negation to civilisation and progress; intolerant and in-humane, and so on and so forth; a language reminiscent of that thrown at the faith in the 19th century just prior to, and in the wake of, the occupation of Islamic lands. Occupation which then was justified as a civilising mission - for the good of Muslims. Today’s media and numerous and rapidly expanding web-sites keep adding to the stream of similar derogatory terms. Some writers and sites are more virulent than others.

The way anti Islamic sentiments are stirred by politicians of most hues, not just the right wingers, might trigger wider, and violent anti-Islamic reactions, whose consequences will be beyond future control of civilised societies.

Of course, in many minds, the Muslims deserve such an end since it is too often believed that Islam is a basically backward and intolerant faith. This, of course, is what by and large the current media stance and most of the academic writing have made of Islam and Muslims, drowning out the otherwise very few voices such as those of Prince Charles, who has always tried to be objective in his views on both Islam and Muslims. Yet, although demonised, painted as the followers of a faith of darkness and intolerance, Muslims are in fact, the followers of an intrinsically just faith.

The myth of Islam as a religion of the sword

Qu'ran III, 128: God has said `.... and those among men who pardon others, and God loves those who act rightly.'

Aggression or violence by the use of the sword and Islam are nearly always depicted as co-existent. History though, reveals the complete opposite. From the early stages of Islam and during the whole of history of the Caliphate, it has usually followed the sunnah policy of general leniency, to all, especially the defeated. Hence, the entry of the Prophet (PBUH) in Makka was followed as Scott says: `with a magnanimity unequalled in the annals of war, a general amnesty was proclaimed and but four persons, whose offences were considered unpardonable, suffered the penalty of death.’

Davenport narrates how in the early stages of Islam, the Prophet (PBUH) sent a messenger to the governor of Bossa, near Damascus, who was taken prisoner and murdered by the Christian leader. Three thousand Muslim men were duly equipped for retribution. The Prophet exhorted them to display their courage in the cause of The Most High. At the same time, however, he enjoined them to collect their booty not from the ordinary people, but from the public treasuries of the conquered state:

“In avenging my injuries, said he, `molest not the harmless votaries of domestic seclusion; spare the weakness of the softer sex, the infant at the breast, and those who, in the course of nature, are hastening from this scene of mortality. Abstain from demolishing the dwellings of the unresisting inhabitants, and destroy not the means of subsistence; respect their fruit trees, do not injure the palm, so useful to Syria for its shade and so delightful for its verdure.”The Prophet (PBUH)

The first four caliphs after the Prophet (PBUH) followed exactly these precepts.
`Be just', ran Caliph Abu Bakr’s (632-4) proclamation;

“Be valiant; die rather than yield; be merciful; slay neither old men, nor women, nor children. Destroy no fruit trees, grain, or cattle. Keep your word even to your enemies.” Caliph Abu Bakr

Under Caliph Omar (634-44), Syria was conquered by the Muslims. One day, probably early in September 635, as Glubb narrates, the Muslims flooded into Damascus at dawn. The Byzantine governor surrendered on terms that all non-Muslims were to pay a poll tax of one dinar… These terms can be seen to have been of extraordinary generosity. Cities taken by storm were, in Europe, liable to be sacked, even as recently as the Napoleonic Wars.

The Muslims had first hand experience of such a fate when their towns and cities were taken by the Crusaders with many instances of the slaughter of Muslims who were given no quarter. Thus, in 1098, during the first crusade (begun in 1096), when the Crusaders took Ma’arrat an’Numan, the slaughter never stopped for three days so that the Franks killed more than 100,000 people. Quoting Robert the Monk, following the taking of Ma’arrat:

"Our men’ said the pious and charitable chronicler (Lebon’s words) `walked through the roads, places, on the roofs, and feasted on the slaughter just like a lioness who had her cubs taken from her. They cut into pieces, and put to death children, the young, and the old crumbling under the weight of the years. They did that in groups… Our men grabbed everybody who fell into their hands. They cut bellies open, and took out gold coins. Oh detestable cupidity of gold! Streams of blood ran on the roads of the city; and everywhere lay corpses. Oh blinded nations and destined to death; none of that multitude accepted the Christian faith. At last Bohemond brought out all those he had first invited to lock themselves in the tower of the place. He ordered that all old women be put to death, and also old men, whose age had rendered useless; then all the rest he ordered to be taken to Antioch to be sold as slaves. This massacre of the Turks took place on 12 December; on Sunday; but on this day not all work could be accomplished; so the following day our men killed all the rest." Robert the Monk

Radulph of Caen said how: "In Maarra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." To avoid such a fate, many Muslims were said by a Christian writer to have jumped down wells to their deaths.

And what happened at Ma’arrat happened in every single town and city taken by the Crusaders. And yet, even when Muslims were slaughtered en masse, still they found reserves of unequalled humanity. Finucane tells how in 1221, the defeated Christians were visited by their (Muslim) enemies, who brought them food to save them from starvation. Such stories of Christian Muslim cooperation, no matter how transient, humane or justified the relationship, Finucane also notes, were usually received `with incomprehension in Europe'.

Toleration of Difference

In the words of Daniel: ‘The notion of toleration in Christendom was borrowed from Muslim practice’. And Davenport puts it:
`As nothing in the world can cause an Osmanli to renounce his religion, so he never seeks to disturb the faith of others…To the Muslim doctors (of the faith) conversions of souls belong to God.’

During the Muslim advance, there were hardly any examples, as was the case elsewhere, of forceful conversion, even in regions such as North Africa, which is often argued as a case of conversions by force of the sword. Forster pointed out, that in North Africa, Islam flourished apart from reliance on `political domination’ and that its `votaries’ were `unshackled’ by restraints of a Muslim government’. Equally, Voltaire, although no friend of Islam, still recognised that `it was not by the force of arms that Islam established itself in half of our hemisphere, but instead did so through enthusiasm and persuasion.’

Glubb finds that in religious toleration,

“the Muslims of the seventh century had abstained from persecution and had permitted Jews and Christians to practise their own laws and to elect their own judges. Yet nearly a thousand years later, people in Europe were still being tortured and burned alive for their faith. And in general, the Ottomans continued the policy of religious toleration which they had inherited from the Arabs.” Glubb

Araya Goubet, too, notes how `religious tolerance, Islamic inspiration, permitted the harmonious coexistence of Christians, Moors, and Jews until the end of the fifteenth century. The dominance of the Christian clergy led to the gradual exclusion, subjugation, and expulsion of the other religious groups, starting in 1492 but culminating in 1567 when Philip II published a decree forbidding Moriscos [Christianised (ex) Muslims] from using Muslim names and the Arabic language. The Moriscos were finally expelled in 1609. Ultimately the history of the Iberian people can be summed up as `living togetherness' until ‘its breaking apart beginning in the fifteenth century.’

Islamic civilisation and race

With respect to the Islamic view of ethnicity, it can safely be said that no other faith can show as equal a sense of brotherhood regardless of an adherent’s origins. It sufficed for the intending Muslim to make the profession of faith to compel equality of treatment from other Muslims. This was a consequence of the Quranic injunction that piety, conformity to Qur’anic rules, was the only criteria for the evaluation of a person. Moral differences between humans were assessed clearly in terms of their deeds irrespective of their original cultures. It seems significant that the first appointed caller to prayer in Islam was black. Moreover Islam called for the freeing of all slaves and indicated that all creation was to be treated with justice and hence care.

In Islam, simply, and for fourteen centuries, no person was stigmatised for their colour. The offspring of a non-white mother and white father was entitled and admitted to full equality, and was not excluded from high office. From 946 to 968, Egypt was governed by Kafur, a Negro born in slavery. Whether in tenth century, or today, says Levi Provencal, there is no lack of coloured people in the ranks of aristocracy or the merchant classes: this has always been an essential feature of Muslim worldview.

It is significant that throughout the centuries that acceptance of Islam, paying zakat, performing prayers and the hajj and observing the obligatory rules of Ramadan applied absolutely without restriction as to the participant’s origins or circumstances. Malcom X during his Hajj seems to found th is to be overriding feature, remarking on:

“….the colour-blindness of the Muslim world's religious society and the colour blindness of the Muslim human society: these two influences had each been making a greater impact, and an increasing persuasion against my former way of thinking.” Malcom X

In Mecca there were `no segregationists-no liberals'; indifference to colour was spontaneous, and for Malcom X this was evidently a shattering experience: `I shared true, brotherly love with many white complexioned Muslims who never gave a thought to the race, or to the complexion, of another Muslim.'

Political, Economic and Cultural Participation for all

Scott notes, how even in the earliest stages when the first shock of conquest had passed, `the overpowering terror inspired by the presence of the (Muslim) invaders had subsided. They proved to be something very different from the incarnate demons, which a distorted imagination had painted them. They were found to be lenient, generous, humane.’ People under the Muslim realm, Scott notes, were enabled to participate in the benefits of the civilization, almost from the very beginning inaugurated by their rulers. Indeed, throughomut Islamic rule, whether under the Arabs, or under the Turks, all minorities benefited from freedom and equality of opportunities that cannot even be equalled in any of today’s Western powers.

Van Ess notes that there were no imposed ghettos in the Islamic world all the way down to modern times. Members of the same religious community often lived in the same quarter for reasons of family solidarity; but they were not kept apart from Muslims deliberately and on principle. In Cordoba, there were eight hundred public schools frequented alike by Moslems, Christians and Jews, where instruction was imparted by lectures. The doors of the college were open to students of every nationality, and the Andalusian Moor, Scott adds, received the rudiments of knowledge at the same time and under the same conditions as the literary pilgrims from Asia Minor and Egypt, from Germany and France and Britain.

In this very field of scholarship, doors were open to all scholars whether they were Chinese, Indians, Africans, Europeans, Jews, and all thrived. Some of Islam’s earliest and most prominent scientists at the Abbasid court, Ishaq Ibn Hunayn and Hunayn Ibn Ishaq were Nestorian Christians. Thabit ibn Qurrah, the astronomer, was a Sabean. The Bakhishtu family who held most prominent positions in the court in the ninth century were Christians, too. And so were the historian-physicist Abu’l Faraj; ‘Ali ibn Ridwan, the Egyptian, who was the al-Hakem’s Doctor; Ibn Djazla of Baghdad, and Isa ibn ‘Ali, another famed physicist; and so on. The Jews had the most glorious pages of their civilisation under Islam, too. If one just sifts through the hundreds of pages of Sarton’s Introduction to the History of Science, one is amazed at the many names of Jewish scholars who worked in the midst of Islamic civilisation on all subjects. Some were not only scholars, but even occupied some of the most trusted positions in the Islamic jurisdictions. Maimonides (philosopher-physicist) was Salah Eddin Al-Ayyubi’s doctor, and Hasdai ibn Shaprut, followed by his sons, held some of the most prominent positions in Muslim Spain. Nearly all Muslim envoys to Christian powers were Jews; and most Muslim trade was in the hands of the Jews.

Even when Islamic land was threatened by both Crusaders and later the Mongols (mid-thirteenth century) so that much of the population was wiped out (800,000 deaths in Baghdad alone in 1258), minorities, whether Jewish or Christian (even if allies of the Crusaders) still survived under Islamic rule to our present day with all their powers, privileges and wealth intact. This fact is surely a far cry from the stereotyped image of Islam as the religion of intolerance. Which highlights the true character of Islamic civilisation, a character that has remained completely alien to their successors. The Muslims did not attack the faith and practice of others. Difference of faith is a state with which Muslims could, and can live.

A Humane Civilisation for all living things

The Quran sura ii, 190-193, clearly sets out the Islamic position with regard to the use of force: no one must go beyond acceptable limits because Allah does not like any sort of proactive aggression, physical or verbal.

The story of Turkish/Algerian corsairs spreading terror on the high seas, and European coastlines was a political ploy used to justify the conquest of Algeria by the French in 1830. Earle and Bono, and above all Fisher, each has debunked this legend. Indeed, piracy was practiced mostly by Europeans; and there was hardly any pirates left in Algiers by some time in the eighteenth century as Valensi and Braudel have shown. As for such captives who allegedly were impaled in their thousands outside the gates of Algiers, or any other place where the Turkish writ ran, there is none of such. Pilgrim accounts of the fourteenth century by the Irishman, Simon of Semeon tell that tales about Christian slaves who were yoked like animals are not to be believed.

Islam, generally supposed to be a source of cruelty, shows the complete opposite. Thevenot remarks that one of the teachings of Islam (zakat) is well observed amongst the Turks, for they are charitable and quite willingly help the poor, whether they are Turks, Christians or Jews. Some Turks give their wealth to the poor when alive, others leave, on their death, large sums to found hospitals, build bridges, caravansaries and aqueducts. Those who do not have the means spend their time repairing roads and filling cisterns. Tournefort provides corroborating evidence, maintaining that apart from individual alms-giving, no nation spends as much as the Turks do on foundations. The rich visit prisons in order to free those who have been imprisoned for debts. Tournefort saw that many families whose properties had been ruined by fires, recovered through charities. He saw people who visited the afflicted in their homes: the sick, even when attacked by the plague, were helped by neighbours and by the funds of religious foundations .

Muslim generosity often strikes many a traveller as being misplaced. Among the singularities noted by a foreigner in Cairo, Volney mentions the large number of hideous dogs wandering in the streets and the kites hovering over houses, uttering mournful noises. He points out that Muslims kill neither, though both dogs and kites are supposed to be impure. On the contrary, devout Muslims establish bread and water foundations for dogs. Thevenot also observes that the charity of the Turks extends to animals and birds. On market days many people buy birds which they soon set free. Thevenot noted persons who leave enormous wealth to feed cats and dogs. They even give money to bakers or butchers for this charitable purpose. Tournefort says it is a fact that in Istanbul (Constantinople) people are eager to execute the wishes of the donors by distributing food to animals in public squares. Benevolence was a form of charity which was commended by the Prophet as the first of all virtues; a benevolence which, indeed, is extended to all animals.

Islamic Faith as Source of humanity

From these above instances, it is argued that the Islamic society is far from deserving the dark image it has been too long painted. The Muslims, of course, are no super-humans. Many amongst them accomplish terrible deeds against others, their own, and even to themselves. Most importantly, the goodness of Muslims as an entity has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims as individuals are better than others. Far from it; they are as good and as bad as anybody else. The difference is the faith itself, its laws and rules, and the changes it makes within individuals and society, especially when such a faith, and its fundamental law, the shari‘a, an often demonised concept, work. Of course it is easy to pick on an individual case of strict application of the Shari’a ignoring its wider positive impact. It is indeed, the shari’a, which insists on the protection of others including the Christians, the Jews, and others who live under an Islamic state; so condemning as invalid the whims of any ruler or individuals. Indeed, any Muslim true to his faith by following the Shari‘a has absolutely no excuse for hurting anyone of a different faith who had not harmed him; or sought to harm him.

Furthermore, it is Islam, faith alone, that changed people for the better as is here well expressed by a few illustrations. Thus, when the Abyssinian king asked them about the new religion, Jaafar, cousin of the Prophet (PBUH) answered:

“We were plunged in the dark meanders of ignorance and barbarism; we adored idols; we ate animals that had died of themselves; we committed hateful things; we wounded the love of our own relations, and violated the laws of hospitality. Ruled by our passions, we only recognised the law of the strongest, until God has chosen a man from our race, illustrious by his birth, for very long respected for his virtues. This Prophet had taught us to profess the unity of God, to reject the superstitions of our fathers, to despise Gods of stones and wood. He commanded us to speak the truth, to be faithful to our trusts, to love our relations, and to protect our guests, to flee vice, to be kind and generous towards our parents and neighbours. He has forbidden us from despoiling women's honour, and from robbing orphans. He recommended us prayers, giving alms, and fasting. We have believed in his mission; we have respected the laws and the morale that he brought us on behalf of God.”

Smith expands on this:

“The Dark Ages of Europe would have been doubly, nay trebly dark; for the Arabs who alone by their arts and sciences, by their agriculture, their philosophy, and their virtues, shone out amidst the universal gloom of ignorance and crime.’
…. And it was the same changes Islam brought to others elsewhere. In contact with Islam, every nation prospered as recognised by Forster, who praised `the salutary moral influence of Islamism upon its “Negro” proselytes.” Smith

In Conclusion, if those leading the onslaught on Islam believe everything will be better without the `darkness of Islam’ as they put it, they can be guaranteed, that without Islam, monsters will prevail.


Your thoughts please :) Heavy criticism is invited.


EDIT - The article is from: www.muslimheritage.com

[ed316]

Good read. I'm buddhist. Does make it seem Islam the is the ultimate religion. I'd never convert anyways. Just not into blind faith.

[Ayura]

Good read. I'm buddhist though.


Doesn't make a difference. Glad you enjoyed it.

[AceoFBase]

What a pile of horse ****.

A complete rewriting of history in favor of muslims and outright denials of events such as the slavery and piracy in Algeirs.

What were the barbary wars fought over?

[AceoFBase]

Here's some of that tolerance in Spain that you speak of:

http://www.secularislam.org/articles/bostom3.htm

In addition to a small minority of privileged Christian notables, Muslim Spain was populated by tens of thousands of Christian slaves, and humiliated and oppressed Christian dhimmis. The muwallads (neo-converts to Islam) were in nearly perpetual revolt against the Arab immigrants who had claimed large estates for themselves, farmed by Christian serfs or slaves. Expropriations and fiscal extortions ignited the flames of continual rebellion by both muwallads and mozarabs (Christian dhimmis) throughout the Iberian peninsula. Leaders of these rebellions were crucified, and their insurgent followers were put to the sword. These bloody conflicts, which occurred throughout the Hispano-Umayyad emirate until the tenth century, fueled endemic religious hatred. An 828 C.E. letter from Louis the Pious to the Christians of Merida summarized their plight under Abd al-Rahman II, and during the preceeding reign: confiscation of their property, unfair increase of their exacted tribute, removal of their freedom (probably meaning slavery), and oppression by excessive taxes15.


In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela, and his son Joseph, who protected a once flourishing Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslim community. At least three thousand Jews perished in an uprising surrounding the 1066 assassination, alone16. The Muslim Berber Almohads in Spain and North Africa (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations. This devastation- massacre, captivity, and forced conversion- was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra. Suspicious of the sincerity of the Jewish converts to Islam, Muslim “inquisitors” (i.e., antedating their Christian Spanish counterparts by three centuries) removed the children from such families, placing them in the care of Muslim educators17. Maimonides, the renowned philosopher and physician, experienced the Almohad persecutions, and had to flee Cordova with his entire family in 1148, temporarily residing in Fez- disguised as a Muslim- before finding asylum in Fatimid Egypt. Indeed, although Maimonides is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Muslim Spain, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews:


"..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.."18


The eminent historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis, observed 35 years ago that nineteenth-century “Pro-Islamic” Jews promoted a utopian view of the egalitarian nature of Islamic rule, particularly in Muslim Spain. Not surprisingly, Muslims eventually also picked up on this romantic Jewish myth about Islam, which became a standard part of their own self-image. However, Lewis concludes,
"…The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.”. 19

[Warlord]

didn't say anything about the beheading of 900+ boys and men of the conquered Makkah. Or the caravan robberies conducted to finance his campaigns....hmmmm....

[Ezekiel25:17]

Make it sound Islam IS THE RELIGION. The Guy who wrote it is probably the Pat Robertson of Islam. Islam=not my cup of tea.

PS. Ayura, where is the link so we can see where this article came from?

[AceoFBase]

Make it sound Islam IS THE RELIGION. The Guy who wrote it is probably the Pat Robertson of Islam. Islam=not my cup of tea.

He sounds more like the Joseph Goebbels of Islam with those outright lies and distortions.

[Ayura]

Make it sound Islam IS THE RELIGION. The Guy who wrote it is probably the Pat Robertson of Islam. Islam=not my cup of tea.

PS. Ayura, where is the link so we can see where this article came from?


The original post has been edited which displays the link at the bottom.

[Solo]

The Italian Prime Minister, [...], has engaged in open diatribes against Islam, labelling it a faith of darkness, a negation to civilisation and progress; intolerant and in-humane, and so on and so forth
I usually disagree with many of the things our current Prime Minister says and does, but frankly I find myself agreeing with this thought.
I have visited a few Muslims countries in these last years but I remember particularly a trip to Sulawesi, Indonesia, circa 7 years ago.
Travelling from south to north of it, a group of 10 of us friends, passed trhu' a number of villages. Some of them Christians and at least one Muslim. I still remember that incredible feeling I experienced in my two days stay in the Muslim village. It really did strike me the difference and if I had to find the words to describe it, I'd probably use light and darkness concepts myself.

I do not consider myself a racist (my best friend is Arab, though not a Muslim). I reckon I still need to learn and investigate a lot, and I'm trying to do so but in all honesty this is what I feel at the moment.

[Coop]

didn't say anything about the beheading of 900+ boys and men of the conquered Makkah. Or the caravan robberies conducted to finance his campaigns....hmmmm....As if Crhistians were any better?

Have you ever read the history of Crusades?

What about the noble Crusaders grilling children alive in Antioch, or slaughtering anybody they could get their hands on in Jerusalem?

What caused Sallahuddin's ("Saladin") war that resulted in the defeat of Crusader States in Palestina? Wasn't it a "caravan robbery" by specific European prince, who not only killed ever man in that caravan, but also raped Sallahuddin's sister?

What about mediaval pogroms on Jews in Europe (each Crusade began with one), or about the pogrom of Jews in Carist Russia of the 19th Century (which saw a demise of more Jews than in WWII)?

All forgotten?

"They are all utterly wrong, Christians, Moslems, Jews and all the others who misuse religion" - citate of an Arabic chronist from Antioch, in the mid-11th Century...

[InetWarrior]

As if Crhistians were any better?

Have you ever read the history of Crusades?

What about the noble Crusaders grilling children alive in Antioch, or slaughtering anybody they could get their hands on in Jerusalem?

What caused Sallahuddin's ("Saladin") war that resulted in the defeat of Crusader States in Palestina? Wasn't it a "caravan robbery" by specific European prince, who not only killed ever man in that caravan, but also raped Sallahuddin's sister?

What about mediaval pogroms on Jews in Europe (each Crusade began with one), or about the pogrom of Jews in Carist Russia of the 19th Century (which saw a demise of more Jews than in WWII)?

All forgotten?

"They are all utterly wrong, Christians, Moslems, Jews and all the others who misuse religion" - citate of an Arabic chronist from Antioch, in the mid-11th Century...

Good post... Islam is OK in my book. Only stupid people are wrong

[AceoFBase]

As if Crhistians were any better?

He never said that Christians were better.
He just disputed the very pro-muslim slant in this article that makes it seem that Islam is a religion that never commited atrocities.

Christians can admit to their violent past and can admit to faults in their present day but muslims can not seem to do the same.

[Dervish]

didn't say anything about the beheading of 900+ boys and men of the conquered Makkah.
There was no massacre in Mecca. Prophet Muhammad was expected to seek revenge on his tribesmen for the atrocities they commitied against the Muslims.

He gathered them by the Kaaba (big black cube that was built by Abrahim and Ismaeel) and he asked them: "what do you expect me to do with you?"

They replied in fear expecting revenge: "you are a good relative and you are kind."

He replied "Go...for you are the free"

Yes prophet Muhammad was warrior prophet and he had empire... but his humblness and mercy was why he was sent to the people of earth.

Now comparing Muslims today with the times of the prophet... there is no comparison...

[Coop]

Add to this that Muhammad did not need to "conquer" Damascus - which was the first major city he "took": the local citizens gladly accepted his rule if he only would protect them against the Byzantine (Christian) terror...

In clear text: it's not the religion - as an idea - that is "dark" or "light" here. It's what people interpret of it.

Like modern-day Christianity is actually based on the Bible, so also Islam is based on Qoran. So much about the theory. In reality, the "problem" with Islam is that Qoran can be properly understood only in Arabic language, and is not especially specific in certain "instructions" it provides; plus, there is no single clerical leader in the Islamic world, but rather a number of sects, each of which interpret the holly book in a different way.

Even more so, each of Islamic sects interprets differently how strictly or in which way should specific parts of Qoran be understood.

Correspondingly, it's easy to misinterpret Qoran to a mass of people. In fact, in essence, one gets a situation in which various people can interpret various suras from Qoran in a completely different way.

Obviously, this is not ideal. But, it must be said that the current problem stems from the times when local rulers - and especially Turkish Sultans - massively misused Qoran to keep population dumb, and themselves in power (which is nothing else but what the Catholic church was exercising for centuries too). The rest was delivered by Crusades (which resulted in the extremism in the Islamic world [begining with "hashashins/assasins", suicide killers, that came into existence as a kind of a "special sect" used for political murders]), as well as purposeful suppression of the Islamic world by the West, in the last 100 years.

Originally, Islam was actually a very progressive, advanced, human and tollerant (towards "infidels") religion for its times, only slightly behind the Zaratrustrian teachings in Persia - as can be seen from how well the Arabs used to live, and how high their culture developed at the times of the Khalifates. And, while the original Prophet Muhammad's campaign for spread of Islam is frequently explained as a kind of a brutal and very bloody war, the matter of fact remains that half of his conquers were achieved through negotiations (see the example of Damascus, which was definitely the most important event for the development of Islam). That some of his followers began to misuse his religion immediately after Mohammad's death is truth, but again not his or the fault of his religion.

So, when "AceofBase" complains that, "nobody said the Christians were better": you can't sellect to see Islam as a religion of darkness, uneducation, and poverty, and therefore comment about articles like the one with which this thread was launched to have a "very pro-muslim slant". Take a look at the whole picture. Like in Christianity, there are specific reasons why specific parts of the Islamic world live the way they do. And, this - by far - does not mean that Islam as a whole is "bad" or people "must" be against it in general.

Christians can admit to their violent past and can admit to faults in their present day but muslims can not seem to do the same.Yes, that's truth.

But, you should not misinterpret the fact that most of Moslems live under oppressive regimes that massively misuse religion for their own purposes - as their unpreparedness to do something similar. It is a matter of fact that these regimes - most of which were put in power by the West and thus imposed on their people, or climbed to power in reaction to Western invasions and/or interventions - do not have any interest to rise the level of education of their people, and do not care about improving living standards of majority of their population.

A good example for this is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where unemployment is reaching 40% and the royals stuff their pockets with almost 70% of the country's income, while leaving a mass of population at mercy of one of Islamic sects. This "organisation" of the Saudi society is based on a "pact" between the royals and local clerigy, according to which the later does not steer unrest against the royals, as long as it gets extensive financial support from them.

Should religion be brandished for this?

Inspite of one of official titles of the Saudi King being, "defender of religion" - the answer is definitely negative.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

So it seems Islam is a religion of "revenge" and if you are "defeated" then they will make an "attempt" at treating you "well."

Good read...but we live in a modern world, I don't really give much credence to the events of hundreds of years ago. I'd much rather hear about the atrocities in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, The Phillippines, Indonesia, Sudan or anywhere else Islamofacists "kill innocents in the name of Allah." I do believe that the most used argument against other religions by these crazy Islamists is the Crusades which the Church has admitted its guilt in and no longer does anyone who professes the Christian faith, except for perhaps some sparse crazies, attempts to kill and conquer in the name of Christianity and if they do they are not supported by ANYONE in the Church. Yet anytime some guy straps a bomb to himself and blows himself up to defend Islam, he will always have thousands upon thousands of supporters to back him up. In fact, I just heard on Fox News (yes the Zionist run propoganda agency) that in Iran they're are actually 50,000+ Iranians who are registered "suicide bombers" and I really think you should research it if you don't believe me. It seems to me that the true religion of "tolerance" is Christianity minus whatever happened hundreds of years ago which obviously was found to be utterly wrong and is no longer pursued in such manner.

Also remember that the Crusades were to win control of our shared Holy Land, not for the sole purpose of exterminating Muslims or Jews. What is the difference between that act and the act of a terrorist strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing himself up in a Jerusalem market...none. Islam has yet to prove itself to be this "religion of peace and tolerance," the only instances I read of this were when someone was "defeated" and were shown mercy in their weakness and vulnerability. We no longer live in the olden days and the world does not revolve around some global measurement contest where we try to "defeat" each other.

[StealthMode]

It gets kinda boring posting this:
Christianity of course has had its time of barbaric behavior, but has also developed with main stream society unlike Islam.

Find this level of hatred in the Bible.....

"Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191)

Try three translations side by side in anticipation of those who say these translations arent correct.... it is the first, and best site Ive found:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and genitals cut off, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, 5:33-34)

"Not to make friendship with Jews and Christians" (Koran 5:51)

"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [all non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Koran, 8:37)

"If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them [infidels]" (Koran 8:65).

Allah and his messenger announce that it is acceptable to go back on our promises (treaties) and obligations with Pagans and make war on them whenever we find ourselves strong enough to do so (Koran 9:3)

"Fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5)

Our God tells us to "fight the unbelievers" and "He will punish them by our hands, cover them with shame and help us (to victory) over them" (Koran 9:14).

"Until they pay the Jizya [a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Koran 9:29)

"Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place" (9:39).

"O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed." (Koran, 9:73)

"Murder them and treat them harshly" (Koran 9:123)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Koran, 47:40)

"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)

"How many were the populations we utterly destroyed because of their sins, setting up in their place other peoples." (Koran, 21:11)

"strike off the heads of the disbelievers" (Koran 47:4)

"Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (Koran 69:30-37)

"You (i.e. Muslims) will fight wi the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177)

The Prophet killed the men of the Jewish tribe Bani Quraiza (some 600 to 800 of them) and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims All the other Jews of Medina were exiled. (Bukhari 5:59:362)

The Prophet had the date-palms of the Jewish tribe of Bani-Al- Nadir burnt and cut down. "It was with Allah's permission" (Koran 59:5)

The Prophet said to Sa'd, :The Bani Quraiza have agreed to accept your verdict" Sa'd said, "Kill all their men and take their women and children as slaves" The Prophet replied, "You have judged according to God's Judgment" (Bukhari 5:59:447)

"The Christians say: The Christ is the son of Allah; "Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:29)

These are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them." (Sura 9:30)

"Unbelievers are those who say: 'God is one of three.' There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished." (Surah 5:73)

[Hullebullen]

Islam (among the the other religions) was only as peaceful as the guy in charge. Baibars of the mamluk sultanate in Egypt enslaved and murdered every man, woman and child in Antioch when he conqured it. It was devastated to the point where the city vanished from the history...an event right up there with the Romans razing of Carthage and more recent events.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

It gets kinda boring posting this:
Christianity of course has had its time of barbaric behavior, but has also developed with main stream society unlike Islam.

Find this level of hatred in the Bible.....

"Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191)

Try three translations side by side in anticipation of those who say these translations arent correct.... it is the first, and best site Ive found:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and genitals cut off, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, 5:33-34)

"Not to make friendship with Jews and Christians" (Koran 5:51)

"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [all non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Koran, 8:37)

"If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them [infidels]" (Koran 8:65).

Allah and his messenger announce that it is acceptable to go back on our promises (treaties) and obligations with Pagans and make war on them whenever we find ourselves strong enough to do so (Koran 9:3)

"Fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5)

Our God tells us to "fight the unbelievers" and "He will punish them by our hands, cover them with shame and help us (to victory) over them" (Koran 9:14).

"Until they pay the Jizya [a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Koran 9:29)

"Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place" (9:39).

"O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed." (Koran, 9:73)

"Murder them and treat them harshly" (Koran 9:123)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Koran, 47:40)

"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)

"How many were the populations we utterly destroyed because of their sins, setting up in their place other peoples." (Koran, 21:11)

"strike off the heads of the disbelievers" (Koran 47:4)

"Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (Koran 69:30-37)

"You (i.e. Muslims) will fight wi the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177)

The Prophet killed the men of the Jewish tribe Bani Quraiza (some 600 to 800 of them) and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims All the other Jews of Medina were exiled. (Bukhari 5:59:362)

The Prophet had the date-palms of the Jewish tribe of Bani-Al- Nadir burnt and cut down. "It was with Allah's permission" (Koran 59:5)

The Prophet said to Sa'd, :The Bani Quraiza have agreed to accept your verdict" Sa'd said, "Kill all their men and take their women and children as slaves" The Prophet replied, "You have judged according to God's Judgment" (Bukhari 5:59:447)

"The Christians say: The Christ is the son of Allah; "Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:29)

These are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them." (Sura 9:30)

"Unbelievers are those who say: 'God is one of three.' There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished." (Surah 5:73)

very scathing stuff...

[Ayura]

It gets kinda boring posting this:
Christianity of course has had its time of barbaric behavior, but has also developed with main stream society unlike Islam.

Find this level of hatred in the Bible.....

It's been a long time since I've done this. Here we go

"Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191)

Completely taking out of context of the Qu'ran as with all these quotes. No where does it say disbelievers either in the translations from your website. Look two Ayahs down and it says:

2:193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

This whole Sura is about defense, not offense. There is a difference between peace and paficism.


"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and genitals cut off, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, 5:33-34)

What exactly is wrong with this quote. Those who made war against Muhammad (pbuh] were to just be left so they can kill him? Moses (pbuh) defended himself against those who wage war against him, so why can't Muhammad (pbuh)?

"Not to make friendship with Jews and Christians" (Koran 5:51)

the Arabic word for "friends" is "Awliyaa", which has four literal meanings: (1) Allies; (2) Friends; and (3) Guardians. In Noble Verse 60:13, the Arabic word used was "tatawallu", which is derived from the root word "Awliyaa".

"Waliy" which is the singular of "Awliyaa" means "Guardian" as your parents were your guardians when you were a kid. So as you can see, the Arabic word "Awliyaa" has different literal meanings.

In that time period, practically everyone Non-Muslim wanted the Muslims dead. The Qu'ran doesn't teach not to be friends with Jews and Christians. Look at this following verse:

"Allah forbids you not, With regard to those who Fight you not for (your) Faith Nor drive you out Of your homes, From dealing kindly and justly With them: For Allah loveth Those who are just. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"


"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)

This was an order from God to the Angels. It isn't a command to Muslims. Look below and you will find that this was because they made war against the Prophet (pbuh), and God had sent Angels to protect the Prophet and the Sahabah

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [all non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Koran, 8:37)

I think that's a mistranslation of because if you read these two translations, it says that God will place those Non-Muslims one on top of another and cast them into Hell:

[quote]That Allah may separate the wicked from the good, The wicked will He place piece upon piece, and heap them all together, and consign them unto hell. Such verily are the losers.

That Allah might separate the impure from the good, and put the impure, some of it upon the other, and pile it up together, then cast it into hell; these it is that are the losers.

"If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them [infidels]" (Koran 8:65).

That Ayah is fabricated, this is the correct translation:

O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

It is basically saying, that if there are twenty of them (the sahabah), then they will have to overcome two hundred etc etc. Not hard to understand.

Allah and his messenger announce that it is acceptable to go back on our promises (treaties) and obligations with Pagans and make war on them whenever we find ourselves strong enough to do so (Koran 9:3)

Another fabrication. A correct translation is:

And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.

It is God telling Muhammad to warn the disbelievers of the punishment God will set for them. Nothing controversial here. All of the prophets warned their people.

"Fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5)

This is yet again another fabricated Ayah, a correct translation was this:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

This was aimed at those who broke treaties between the Muslims and themselves.

And in 9:6 we have:

And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Our God tells us to "fight the unbelievers" and "He will punish them by our hands, cover them with shame and help us (to victory) over them" (Koran 9:14).

Look at the Ayah before this one:

Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

"Until they pay the Jizya [a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Koran 9:29)

Jizya is not a penalty tax at all. It is protection tax which is exactly the same amount as the Zakkat tax which is compulsary for all Muslims. This Ayah has been fabricated with yet, another lie.

"Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place" (9:39).

When placed within the context of the Qu'ran (which you should do with all texts, religious or non-religious) it is basically in short God saying that those who do not help defend the Prophet, are not fulfilling their duties as a Muslim.


"O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed." (Koran, 9:73)

Again, since this is still within context of Sura nine, it is about those who broke the treaties and committed the first attack against the Muslims. I fail to see how this is directed at Muslims since God adresses this Ayah only to Muhammad (pbuh) and noone else.

"Murder them and treat them harshly" (Koran 9:123)

Murder who? Again, Sura nine I addressed before. I can't post the history and details about Sura nine since they are too long for this thread. If you want, I'll PM them to you.

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Koran, 47:40)

Erm...there is no 47:40 in the Qu'ran. You can check in the link you provided.

"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)

Yes, God did destroy populations not because of fun, but because of the immense amount of sin. Refer to Sodom and Gormorrah.

"How many were the populations we utterly destroyed because of their sins, setting up in their place other peoples." (Koran, 21:11)

One of the other translations is:

How many a community that dealt unjustly have We shattered, and raised up after them another folk!

"strike off the heads of the disbelievers" (Koran 47:4)

It doesn't say that all all. It says this:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. [b]

[b]Smite doesn't mean 'cut off' - it means heavy blow or to afflict damage. This is just telling Muhammad (pbuh) about the conducts he should carry out when in war.

"Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (Koran 69:30-37)

Between 1-37 it is talking about the hereafter in Jahannam (hell). This is not a command for Muslims. Again, as with all these quotes, completely taken out of context to suit a personal agenda.

"You (i.e. Muslims) will fight wi the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177)

This one is from the days of Qayimah (events following Judgement day). When the Anti-Christ comes, the majority of his followers is reported from Hadith to mostly from the Judaic faith as they will see him as the Massiach. The Anti-Christ and Jesus (pbuh) will have a huge war. That particular hadith is a prediction of what will happen.

The Prophet killed the men of the Jewish tribe Bani Quraiza (some 600 to 800 of them) and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims All the other Jews of Medina were exiled. (Bukhari 5:59:362)

That is a fabrication of a hadith. Read the proper version:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again) . He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa', the tribe of 'Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina.

The Prophet had the date-palms of the Jewish tribe of Bani-Al- Nadir burnt and cut down. "It was with Allah's permission" (Koran 59:5)

From, you own website you provided:

Theme and Subject Matter

The theme of the Surah as stated above, is an appraisal of the battle against the Bani an Nadir. In this, on the whole, four things have been discussed.

1. In the first four verses the world has been, admonished to take heed of the fate that had just befallen the Bani an-Nadir. A major tribe which was as strong in numbers as the Muslims, whose people boasted of far more wealth and possession who were by no means ill equipped militarily and whose forts were well fortified could not stand siege even for a few Days, and expressed their readiness to accept banishment from their centuries old, well established settlement even though not a single man from among them was slain. Allah says that this happened not because of any power possessed by the Muslims but because the Jews had tried to resist and fight Allah and His Messenger, and those who dare to resist the power of Allah, always meet with the same fate.

2. In verse 5, the rule of the law of war that has been enunciated is: the destruction caused in the enemy territory for military purposes does not come under "spreading mischief in the earth."

3. In vv 6-10 it has been stated how the lands and properties which come under the control of the Islamic State as a result of war or peace terms, are to be managed. As it was the first ever occasion that the Muslims took control of a conquered territory, the law concerning it was laid down for their guidance.

4. In vv. 11-17 the attitude that the hypocrites had adopted on the occasion of the battle against the Bani an-Nadir has been reviewed and the causes underlying it have been pointed out.

5. The whole of the last section (vv. 18-24) is an admonition for all those people who had professed to have affirmed the faith and joined the Muslim community, but were devoid of the true spirit of the faith. In it they have been told what is the real demand of the Faith, what is the real difference between piety and wickedness, what is the place and importance of the Quran which they professed to believe in, and what are the attributes of God in Whom they claimed to have believed.

The Prophet said to Sa'd, :The Bani Quraiza have agreed to accept your verdict" Sa'd said, "Kill all their men and take their women and children as slaves" The Prophet replied, "You have judged according to God's Judgment" (Bukhari 5:59:447)

Again, I have already explained the diplomatic issue between the Muslims and Bani Quraiza.

"The Christians say: The Christ is the son of Allah; "Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:29)

Erm...You just posted this same verse number earlier but with a different context. Did you check these Ayahs before you copied and pasted them?

These are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them." (Sura 9:30)

From your own website again, that you provided, the synopsis is:

In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behaviour. 13 - 37

"Unbelievers are those who say: 'God is one of three.' There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished." (Surah 5:73)
From your own website:

The theme of the corruptions of the Jews and Christians has been resumed. The Christians especially have been reproved for their errors in regard to the doctrine of Tauhid. At the same time they have been preferred to the hard hearted Jews, for there are among them some who are more inclined towards the Truth. 70 - 86



Please next time if you wish to do something like this, keep it it short or one by one. I had just given extremely brief summaries.

Salam.

[Coop]

So it seems Islam is a religion of "revenge" and if you are "defeated" then they will make an "attempt" at treating you "well." Just like the current US politics: those who are with us are "democratic" and "for freedom", those against us are "terrorists" - whatever the later really do or say, and whatever the former actually are...

Good read...but we live in a modern world, I don't really give much credence to the events of hundreds of years ago. I'd much rather hear about the atrocities in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, The Phillippines, Indonesia, Sudan or anywhere else Islamofacists "kill innocents in the name of Allah."Very good. Then you have to consider, however, that you're searching for these "Islamofascists" (something that doesn't realy exists, nor is really comparable, but is still a designation used with increasing predilection in the USA) in completely wrong places. You mention countries where different forms of terrorism usually credited to al-Qaida are occurring, but don't think about their origins nor bases or supporters.

The later are two "most important non-NATO allies" of the USA - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It was Pakistan that created, supported and run the Taliban for almost ten years - with Saudi financial support. It was Pakistan from where terrorists that launched the "Abu Sayyaf" group came (with Saudi financial backing). The same can be said about Indonesia. Sudanese regime is based on Saudi financial backing; Iraqi insurgency is a much more complex issue, so much is sure, but SA-18s deployed there recently were also paid (to Russians) by Saudi money, and up to 20% of suicide killers are Saudis...

The Palestinian terrorism has a completely different origin (Israeli oppression) - but is still mainly supported by Saudi money too...

Now, take a look at the circumstances under which up to 60% of Saudis and a much higher percentage of Pakistanis are living: had you ever been to slums of Ryadh or Kharachi you'd immediately agree that literaly everything is better - but to live there. That's a "perfect" soil for anybody willing to buy the story of "Martyrdom for Allah" - regardless how little (if anything at all) this has with Islam.

That, however, is no "Islamofascism": that's the US ignorance of reality and support for two incredibly oppressive "Islamic" establishments and regimes.

I do believe that the most used argument against other religions by these crazy Islamists is the Crusades which the Church has admitted its guilt in and no longer does anyone who professes the Christian faith...Do you sincerely believe that, "Oh, we really regret; Crusaders were a mistake" is going to delete memory about 1.000 years of history - and, even more so, undo all the misbehaviour of the last 10-20 years?

...except for perhaps some sparse crazies, attempts to kill and conquer in the name of Christianity and if they do they are not supported by ANYONE in the Church.Please understand, that what the "Church" as such is talking and doing doesn't matter any more to Moslems - since almost 1.000 years. Besides, when you read specific publications in the West, you'll again find explanations about "Crusade in Iraq" or things in that context. Consequently, from the standpoint of any serious Islamist, nothing changed at all.

Yet anytime some guy straps a bomb to himself and blows himself up to defend Islam, he will always have thousands upon thousands of supporters to back him up. In fact, I just heard on Fox News (yes the Zionist run propoganda agency) that in Iran they're are actually 50,000+ Iranians who are registered "suicide bombers" and I really think you should research it if you don't believe me.Er... do you want to have a serious dicussion, or are we about to talk about Fox News?

It seems to me that the true religion of "tolerance" is Christianity minus whatever happened hundreds of years ago which obviously was found to be utterly wrong and is no longer pursued in such manner.Oh, really? So, why don't you consider Islam the same way?

1.500 years of history - minus what is going on since widespread Western oppression in the Middle East, since 50 years...

Where is the problem?

Your choice to consider only the last 50 years...?

In the context of total history, a laughable nick of time...

Also remember that the Crusades were to win control of our shared Holy Land, not for the sole purpose of exterminating Muslims or Jews.Oh, yes, indeed. That one (control of "sacred holly land") included the other ("extermination of anybody living there" - including not only Moslems and Jews, but also local Christians) is not important here, or?

What is the difference between that act and the act of a terrorist strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing himself up in a Jerusalem market...none.Well, the first caused/created the second. As already mentioned the original suicide-killers were "hashashins" - a sect established in response to Christian terror in Palestina...

Islam has yet to prove itself to be this "religion of peace and tolerance,"..Islam was proving itself as such at times Christianity had no clue about the spelling of words "peace" or "tolerance".

...the only instances I read of this were when someone was "defeated" and were shown mercy in their weakness and vulnerability.Places like Damascus were never "defeated" by Mohammed; plenty of other places either.

So, I'd say it is very likely that you haven't read enough.

We no longer live in the olden days and the world does not revolve around some global measurement contest where we try to "defeat" each other.Aha. And, what is the purpose of the US war "against terror"?

The White House joining al-Qaida?

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Just like the current US politics: those who are with us are "democratic" and "for freedom", those against us are "terrorists" - whatever the later really do or say, and whatever the former actually are...

Very good. Then you have to consider, however, that you're searching for these "Islamofascists" (something that doesn't realy exists, nor is really comparable, but is still a designation used with increasing predilection in the USA) in completely wrong places. You mention countries where different forms of terrorism usually credited to al-Qaida are occurring, but don't think about their origins nor bases or supporters.

The later are two "most important non-NATO allies" of the USA - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It was Pakistan that created, supported and run the Taliban for almost ten years - with Saudi financial support. It was Pakistan from where terrorists that launched the "Abu Sayyaf" group came (with Saudi financial backing). The same can be said about Indonesia. Sudanese regime is based on Saudi financial backing; Iraqi insurgency is a much more complex issue, so much is sure, but SA-18s deployed there recently were also paid (to Russians) by Saudi money, and up to 20% of suicide killers are Saudis...

The Palestinian terrorism has a completely different origin (Israeli oppression) - but is still mainly supported by Saudi money too...

Now, take a look at the circumstances under which up to 60% of Saudis and a much higher percentage of Pakistanis are living: had you ever been to slums of Ryadh or Kharachi you'd immediately agree that literaly everything is better - but to live there. That's a "perfect" soil for anybody willing to buy the story of "Martyrdom for Allah" - regardless how little (if anything at all) this has with Islam.

That, however, is no "Islamofascism": that's the US ignorance of reality and support for two incredibly oppressive "Islamic" establishments and regimes.

Do you sincerely believe that, "Oh, we really regret; Crusaders were a mistake" is going to delete memory about 1.000 years of history - and, even more so, undo all the misbehaviour of the last 10-20 years?

Please understand, that what the "Church" as such is talking and doing doesn't matter any more to Moslems - since almost 1.000 years. Besides, when you read specific publications in the West, you'll again find explanations about "Crusade in Iraq" or things in that context. Consequently, from the standpoint of any serious Islamist, nothing changed at all.

Er... do you want to have a serious dicussion, or are we about to talk about Fox News?

Oh, really? So, why don't you consider Islam the same way?

1.500 years of history - minus what is going on since widespread Western oppression in the Middle East, since 50 years...

Where is the problem?

Your choice to consider only the last 50 years...?

In the context of total history, a laughable nick of time...

Oh, yes, indeed. That one (control of "sacred holly land") included the other ("extermination of anybody living there" - including not only Moslems and Jews, but also local Christians) is not important here, or?

Well, the first caused/created the second. As already mentioned the original suicide-killers were "hashashins" - a sect established in response to Christian terror in Palestina...

Islam was proving itself as such at times Christianity had no clue about the spelling of words "peace" or "tolerance".

Places like Damascus were never "defeated" by Mohammed; plenty of other places either.

So, I'd say it is very likely that you haven't read enough.

Aha. And, what is the purpose of the US war "against terror"?

The White House joining al-Qaida?

Haha good laugh coop, but I never read anything that condemned nor justified the act of terrorism in the name of an Islamic God in your post. As far as the "war on terror" for which you speak, sorry the West isn't going to turn tail and run in the face of a weak-minded society blinded by radical imams that convince there people to kill themselves. The Islamic radicals wanted a war, and thats what theyve got themselves...TRUST ME the West would really prefer not to have this war, but since the Muslim world seems to not only support and encourage radical Islam, but ALLOW it to simmer in their countries, there is no choice. Either you fall in line with THE REST OF THE WORLD outside of Islam or you fall to the wayside. No one gets special treatment...threats, intimidation, and war do not work either because we don't live in the 1500's.

[StukaJr]

very scathing stuff...

Jeez, you don't have to repeat a half page post just to add your single line comment! Web Ethics - people, web ethics! :)

[speckfire]

Ayura you can't even read or understand Arabic. Post your Quran qoutes in Arabic so I can have my friend read them. Dont read me you english "kitab tafseer".

[Coop]

Haha good laugh coop, but I never read anything that condemned nor justified the act of terrorism in the name of an Islamic God in your post.That's your problem, not mine. I already told you to read more: it helps against guessing and cheap PRBS thrown on all of us every day by the "mainstream" media, then had you read instead of watching FoxNews, you'd learn that everybody meaning anything in the Islamic world has condemned terrorism - regardless which form or kind.

As far as the "war on terror" for which you speak, sorry the West isn't going to turn tail and run in the face of a weak-minded society blinded by radical imams that convince there people to kill themselves.The West cannot "turn the tail" - and even less so run anywhere.

The problem the mass of the people - including all the possible Western governments, and especially people like you - gladly ignore is that you all see "al-Qaida" as the "source" of terrorism, as the main organisation, a network run by a group of fanatics, supported by "Mullahs", and which keeps everything under control.

Under a closer look, this is actually utter nonsence.

A closer study of suicide-killers from 9/11 and those from London has shown, that most of them belonged to the 2nd generation of immigrants: they were youngsters the parents of which moved to the West, uprooted from their original surrounding, and not yet integrated into the new one. Fed with what they believed was the "truth" about Islam and was the "truth" about the situation in their homelands, they isolated themselves from literaly everybody - including Islam.

People ready to do this kind of things are therefore not to search somewhere in the Middle East, Asia or Africa, but in the USA, UK, and various EU-countries.

And that's why the West cannot run anywhere - except we all decide to run away from where we live, or we finally accept the fact that something serious needs to be done in regards of immigration.

Surely, our governments and most of us have decided not to do anything: after all, "we" cannot be blamed for what we do, right? The Western technology is so clearly superior, we enjoy such a much higher quality of life, so we must also be superior to histeric Moslems. All they need to do is to accept our way of life, right?

Well, turn it the way you like, but that's why the West is also fighting the war in the completely wrong place - except you are ready to admit that the whole brawle has absolutely nothing to do with religion, but solely with oil and gas?

The Islamic radicals wanted a war, and thats what theyve got themselves...Do you know any "Islamic radical" - at least by name, not to say personally - so you can say, "THAT man wants a war"?

TRUST ME the West would really prefer not to have this war, but since the Muslim world seems to not only support and encourage radical Islam, but ALLOW it to simmer in their countries, there is no choice.As said above, the West permits this special kind of fanaticism (not "radical Islam" or anything similar) to simmer at home. That is the first and most important problem which should actually be solved.

That, however, is not the case: we do not take care to prevent the "desease", but are trying to cure an empidemy with a single shot - through fighting wars away from home. This is never going to work - but is damn easier to explain to own public, isn't it?

The matter of fact remains, however, that the kind of fanaticism that resulted in 9/11 or London U-attacks, has nothing to do with anything like "radical Islam": I have several friends who would not only be described as "radical Islamists" by people like you (or their own parents), but even describe themselves as such. They'd never come anywhere near the idea to do anything even roughly similar to the kind our "homegrown" fanatics did on 9/11, just for example... They respect our decision to live the way we want (even if questioning its reasoning), and - in true Islamic way of thinking and living - say they have no problem to respect our decisions to live the way we do.

Now, compare this with yourself for a moment: you clearly indicate that you don't even care what do they really think, and are not ready to respect their decision or religion, that you are more than willing to buy any cheap propaganda spread about Islam, and that you are ready to cause or support death, pain, suffering and misery to them - regardless of the fact that you must admit you actually don't have the slightest clue about them.

I'm really sorry I have a very distinct opinion about what do I think about people thinking in a specific way - regardless of their religion - and what not.

Either you fall in line with THE REST OF THE WORLD outside of Islam or you fall to the wayside.That's exactly the way the current US admin and a better part of its population think: we don't care who you are, what are you doing nor why, but as long as you at least pretend to dance on our music, you're "democratic" and "freedom&peace-loving" and the "most-important non-NATO ally". As soon as you're not doing what we want you to do, you are a terrorist.

This is exclusive, and therefore a method that can only result in a complete demise of one of the two opponents. Sorry, but with there being meanwhile 1.2 billion of Moslems, and the Western population decreasing each year, there is little doubt about who'd win this kind of a war...

No one gets special treatment...threats, intimidation, and war do not work either because we don't live in the 1500's.Aha. So, why do you then support threats, intimidation and war against so many countries in the Middle East?

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

there is a war against "multiple" countries in the ME, wow...news to me...iraq thats one...hhhmmm cant think of any others.

anyhow that was a long post...i have one question...when is a Muslim gonna stand up? i mean really do something...all i ever hear is WE CONDEMN THIS ACT...(but we're too scared to do anything to punish the perpetrators). its more like you think "well hell, at least their our OWN people" i mean if some Christian were to do anything wrong to anyone in Islam they would condemn it and in no way try to punish them for it...oh **** wait...those cartoons, i forgot, ****, some people died not gonna lie and how about the war in Sudan, mass genocide of Christians...hhhmmm well i saw some Muslims burn MY CROSS in order to retaliate for some dumbass cartoon, hey guess what i condemn it...am i gonna do something crazy, naw no thanks...

Hey if the Islamic world would police its own people I'd have no problem but with leaders like the prez in iran, what could you expect from such people?

[Coop]

there is a war against "multiple" countries in the ME, wow...news to me...iraq thats one...hhhmmm cant think of any others.As said: you should read more.

Western powers are directly involved in Afghanistan, and - in one form or the other - also in Yemen, Algeria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, just for example...

anyhow that was a long post...i have one question...when is a Muslim gonna stand up? i mean really do something...all i ever hear is WE CONDEMN THIS ACT...(but we're too scared to do anything to punish the perpetrators).First of all, bevare yourself from your dreams coming truth. As the Iraqi example has shown, "bringing democracy" to some countries there does not mean automatically having pro-US regimes. Quite on the contrary.

As second, most of Moslems can only "stand up" once they can get rid of regimes imposed upon them by the West.

Regimes like the ones in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, just for example, each have over 400.000 people working in various intelligence and security services, which basically spy against each other and the population, all with the purpose of ascertaining the survival of the regime. And, the most important and most influential of these services all enjoy massive US support. Pakistan is in essence ruled by a mix of military and feudal establishment - now supported by US intelligence and military as well. All these three countries (and not to talk about Qatar, Bahrain or Oman) are little more but US military protectorates.

One can't remove their regimes over the night - and even if, it is almost certainly that there would be powerful US military intervention in response....like in the case of the original al-Qaida...

its more like you think "well hell, at least their our OWN people" i mean if some Christian were to do anything wrong to anyone in Islam they would condemn it and in no way try to punish them for it...oh **** wait...those cartoons, i forgot, ****, some people died not gonna lie and how about the war in Sudan, mass genocide of Christians...Sudan is a special case, where the Islam was always interpreted in the worst possible case, and actually the way the "northerners" found the religion suitable to their old traditions and habbits (all based on slavery of animalists and Christians in the south). Had you read anything more about the history of this country, you'd know that there were numerous interventions against outbursts of extremism in Sudan in the last 200 years, most of which actually failed (for reasons similar to failures of invasions of Afghanistan).

Hey if the Islamic world would police its own people I'd have no problem but with leaders like the prez in iran, what could you expect from such people?Could you, for change, answer at least one of my questions: How should the "Islamic World" police its own people?

Especially since it's already policed by the USA...

[Ayura]

Ayura you can't even read or understand Arabic. Post your Quran qoutes in Arabic so I can have my friend read them. Dont read me you english "kitab tafseer".


My friends have already told me the stuff in Arabic. Just refer to the Sura and Ayah number and tell your Arabic friends to refer to them.

[block52]

Guys, ayura is a fundamentalist muslim fanatic. There is no point in arguing with him.

He thinks shariah law is good, fair and just. He thinks that establishing a caliphate ruled under shariah law is a step in the right direction. I mean, come on, these are insane views, which unfortunatly, are shared by many muslims.

The aussie Pm is right. People like ayura will soon have to choose between shariah law and citizenship. They must disavow that part of islam, and perhaps many other parts of islam, if they are going to be welcome in australia at all.

This is but an inkling of the future that awaits muslims in the west - we will not tolerate islamic nazis for very much longer. A future full of riots over cartoons on our home soil, blaspehmy laws, terrorism, carbombings and burnings, and mass sectarian violence and thought control, will not be tolerated.

We prefer to watch the muslim world explode into violence far away from our living-rooms. Hopefully we will pull out of Iraq soon so that our brave soliders do not shed any more blood for nothing.

This forum allows him to peddle his islamic propaganda to all of us. But do not be fooled. Use common sense and look at muslims today and what islam teaches them. Do some research about what happened to the hindus, berbers, persians, copts, maronites, greeks, armenians, and jews in the past, and now look at what muslims are doing today in the name of allah and his messenger.

It is a game I tell you. Muslims feel powerful when they are able to outwit and trick infidels into believing what they want us to believe. They are not interested in finding the truth or a common ground. They are only interested in creating their own version of truth and forcing others the believe in it. It is part of the jihad against our spirit and our infidel way of life, which they despise and seek to annihilate.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

no block, lets not fight it...we must...JOIN THEM! or we will be crushed!

no but thats the feeling i get from all of this...