Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prophet's Biography by a Non-Muslim by By Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, Head of the Dept. of Philosophy, Govt. College for Women. University of Mysore, Mandya-571401 (Karnatika, India).
The theory of Islam and Sword for instance is not heard now frequently in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that there is no compulsion in religion is well known. Gibbon, a historian of world repute says, "A pernicious tenet has been imputed to Mohammadans, the duty of extirpating all the religions by sword." This charge based on ignorance and bigotry, says the eminent historian, is refuted by Quran, by history of Musalman conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of Christian worship. The great success of Mohammad's life had been effected by sheer moral force, without a stroke of sword.
But in pure self-defense, after repeated efforts of conciliation had utterly failed, circumstances dragged him into the battlefield. But the prophet of Islam changed the whole strategy of the battlefield. The total number of casualties in all the wars that took place during his lifetime when the whole Arabian Peninsula came under his banner, does not exceed a few hundreds in all.
But even on the battlefield he taught the Arab barbarians to pray, to pray not individually, but in congregation to God the Almighty. During the dust and storm of warfare whenever the time for prayer came, and it comes five times a every day, the congregation prayer had not to be postponed even on the battlefield.A party had to be engaged in bowing their heads before God while other was engaged with the enemy. After finishing the prayers, the two parties had to exchange their positions.
To the Arabs, who would fight for forty years on the slight provocation that a camel belonging to the guest of one tribe had strayed into the grazing land belonging to other tribe and both sides had fought till they lost 70,000 lives in all; threatening the extinction of both the tribes to such furious Arabs, the Prophet of Islam taught self-control and discipline to the extent of praying even on the battlefield.
In an aged of barbarism, the Battlefield itself was humanized and strict instructions were issued not to cheat, not to break trust, not to mutilate, not to kill a child or woman or an old man, not to hew down date palm nor burn it, not to cut a fruit tree, not to molest any person engaged in worship.
His own treatment with his bitterest enemies is the noblest example for his followers. At the conquest of Mecca, he stood at the zenith of his power. The city which had refused to listen to his mission, which had tortured him and his followers, which had driven him and his people into exile and which had unrelentingly persecuted and boycotted him even when he had taken refuge in a place more than 200 miles away, that city now lay at his feet.
By the laws of war he could have justly avenged all the cruelties inflicted on him and his people. But what treatment did he accord to them? Mohammad's heart flowed with affection and he declared, "This day, there is no REPROOF against you and you are all free." "This day" he proclaimed, "I trample under my feet all distinctions between man and man, all hatred between man and man."
Prophet's Biography by a Non-Muslim by By Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, Head of the Dept. of Philosophy, Govt. College for Women. University of Mysore, Mandya-571401 (Karnatika, India).
The theory of Islam and Sword for instance is not heard now frequently in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that there is no compulsion in religion is well known. Gibbon, a historian of world repute says, "A pernicious tenet has been imputed to Mohammadans, the duty of extirpating all the religions by sword." This charge based on ignorance and bigotry, says the eminent historian, is refuted by Quran, by history of Musalman conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of Christian worship. The great success of Mohammad's life had been effected by sheer moral force, without a stroke of sword.
But in pure self-defense, after repeated efforts of conciliation had utterly failed, circumstances dragged him into the battlefield. But the prophet of Islam changed the whole strategy of the battlefield. The total number of casualties in all the wars that took place during his lifetime when the whole Arabian Peninsula came under his banner, does not exceed a few hundreds in all.
But even on the battlefield he taught the Arab barbarians to pray, to pray not individually, but in congregation to God the Almighty. During the dust and storm of warfare whenever the time for prayer came, and it comes five times a every day, the congregation prayer had not to be postponed even on the battlefield.A party had to be engaged in bowing their heads before God while other was engaged with the enemy. After finishing the prayers, the two parties had to exchange their positions.
To the Arabs, who would fight for forty years on the slight provocation that a camel belonging to the guest of one tribe had strayed into the grazing land belonging to other tribe and both sides had fought till they lost 70,000 lives in all; threatening the extinction of both the tribes to such furious Arabs, the Prophet of Islam taught self-control and discipline to the extent of praying even on the battlefield.
In an aged of barbarism, the Battlefield itself was humanized and strict instructions were issued not to cheat, not to break trust, not to mutilate, not to kill a child or woman or an old man, not to hew down date palm nor burn it, not to cut a fruit tree, not to molest any person engaged in worship.
His own treatment with his bitterest enemies is the noblest example for his followers. At the conquest of Mecca, he stood at the zenith of his power. The city which had refused to listen to his mission, which had tortured him and his followers, which had driven him and his people into exile and which had unrelentingly persecuted and boycotted him even when he had taken refuge in a place more than 200 miles away, that city now lay at his feet.
By the laws of war he could have justly avenged all the cruelties inflicted on him and his people. But what treatment did he accord to them? Mohammad's heart flowed with affection and he declared, "This day, there is no REPROOF against you and you are all free." "This day" he proclaimed, "I trample under my feet all distinctions between man and man, all hatred between man and man."
Saudi Arabia just about makes all these claims moot. Saudi Arabia is under Islamic law and 99.9% Muslim and allows NO Christian books (Bible), symbols (cross/crucifix), and gatherings. The incredibly few Christians who live there and who are mostly foreign workers, have to gather in hiding like in Roman times. Now if that's your idea of tolerance, then I am not following.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,784,250 times
Reputation: 3587
I am tolerant of all religions. It is religion that needs to be tolerant and recognize the fact that this country- and most western nations- are SECULAR and not governed by religion. As it should be.
Saudi Arabia just about makes all these claims moot. Saudi Arabia is under Islamic law and 99.9% Muslim and allows NO Christian books (Bible), symbols (cross/crucifix), and gatherings. The incredibly few Christians who live there and who are mostly foreign workers, have to gather in hiding like in Roman times. Now if that's your idea of tolerance, then I am not following.
no , it's not my idea of tolerance
you gave me example for unusual condition , and trying to ignore the history and focus on special islamic country as sudia !
these laws is special for saudia because (100%) muslims
within mohammed (pbuh) life and under caliphates after his death , christians and jews who lived beside muslims were practise thier relegion freely
as you said there are just 1% of christians (all of them are foriegn) they must respect local politics of islamic country (100% muslims ) , sudia will be tolerance with them as long as they respect the laws , if these laws not suitable for them , so they are free to not live there
Saudi Arabia just about makes all these claims moot. Saudi Arabia is under Islamic law and 99.9% Muslim and allows NO Christian books (Bible), symbols (cross/crucifix), and gatherings. The incredibly few Christians who live there and who are mostly foreign workers, have to gather in hiding like in Roman times. Now if that's your idea of tolerance, then I am not following.
Everytime the issue of Islam comes up, someone brings up Saudi Arabia, as if it is the official model of Islam. In fact of all existing Muslim countries, none come close to even the basic idea of life under Islam.
Most of these so called Muslim contries, only uses Islam as a tool to play on its people's sentiments and emotions, especially when facing foreign pressure. Islam is also used by governments to manipulate the simple people, when those same governments are furtherst away from what Islam stands for.
Saudi Arabia is just one example. Maybe the most extreme one along with Iran. While life in SA is not as horrible as some would want us to beleive, it is not great either. I'm all for SA giving rights to the christians living within its borders along with all other minorities, but i think they should start with giving their own citizens their rights first (as mentioned 100% muslim).
Contrary to what some want us to beleive, Most if not all Arab and Muslim countries have freedom of religion rules, and most Christians practice their religion freely. The only exception is SA, and part of the reason, is that SA is seen as the Muslim holly land, and no religion should be openly practised within its borders. Right or Wrong? i don't know, but i still have to see the Vatican accomodating non christians, let alone anyone complaining about it.
Everytime the issue of Islam comes up, someone brings up Saudi Arabia, as if it is the official model of Islam. In fact of all existing Muslim countries, none come close to even the basic idea of life under Islam.
Most of these so called Muslim contries, only uses Islam as a tool to play on its people's sentiments and emotions, especially when facing foreign pressure. Islam is also used by governments to manipulate the simple people, when those same governments are furtherst away from what Islam stands for.
Saudi Arabia is just one example. Maybe the most extreme one along with Iran. While life in SA is not as horrible as some would want us to beleive, it is not great either. I'm all for SA giving rights to the christians living within its borders along with all other minorities, but i think they should start with giving their own citizens their rights first (as mentioned 100% muslim).
Contrary to what some want us to beleive, Most if not all Arab and Muslim countries have freedom of religion rules, and most Christians practice their religion freely. The only exception is SA, and part of the reason, is that SA is seen as the Muslim holly land, and no religion should be openly practised within its borders. Right or Wrong? i don't know, but i still have to see the Vatican accomodating non christians, let alone anyone complaining about it.
Saudi Arabia is to Muslims as the Vatican is to Catholics. Mecca and Medina are seen as the holiest of Islamic places; In fact both these cities are seen as a holly Islamic sanctuary. So IMHO, it is not an over reach for Muslims to expect that no religion other than Islam be publicly practiced in those two cities, the same way no one expects that one should visit the Vatican or live in it, and build a Mosque or a temple.
Now I see the argument made that Saudi Arabia is a big country, and thus people should be granted the same freedom they get anywhere, and I agree if those two cities are excluded. I guess the argument becomes between those who view Mecca and Medina as the holly cities, or those who see that Saudi Arabia in all its regions holly, despite the absence of any religious evidence to that other than a hadith for Prophet Mohamed "that no two religions will be in the Arabian peninsula". But that is open to interpretation, does it mean that no two religions will rule the area, or does it mean no two religions will be practices within them. Given the fact that Christians and Jews lived in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of Mohamed and long after, most would conclude it is the former than that latter.
Saudi Arabia is to Muslims as the Vatican is to Catholics. Mecca and Medina are seen as the holiest of Islamic places; In fact both these cities are seen as a holly Islamic sanctuary. So IMHO, it is not an over reach for Muslims to expect that no religion other than Islam be publicly practiced in those two cities, the same way no one expects that one should visit the Vatican or live in it, and build a Mosque or a temple.
Now I see the argument made that Saudi Arabia is a big country, and thus people should be granted the same freedom they get anywhere, and I agree if those two cities are excluded. I guess the argument becomes between those who view Mecca and Medina as the holly cities, or those who see that Saudi Arabia in all its regions holly, despite the absence of any religious evidence to that other than a hadith for Prophet Mohamed "that no two religions will be in the Arabian peninsula". But that is open to interpretation, does it mean that no two religions will rule the area, or does it mean no two religions will be practices within them. Given the fact that Christians and Jews lived in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of Mohamed and long after, most would conclude it is the former than that latter.
So what you are saying is that Muhammed, himself, preached intolerance. Yes, you have cleared it up.
So what you are saying is that Muhammed, himself, preached intolerance. Yes, you have cleared it up.
The Islam, like the Christians, want only 1 world religion namely theirs. So I guess you could call the Islam, the Christians and Judaism as 'intolerant'.
They all rather stick to their own kind instead of enjoy the many different cultures in the world.
Originally Posted by jujThe Islam, like the Christians, want only 1 world religion namely theirs. So I guess you could call the Islam, the Christians and Judaism as 'intolerant'.
They all rather stick to their own kind instead of enjoy the many different cultures in the world.
Here's the Netherlands religious mix in 2002:
Roman Catholic 31%, Dutch Reformed 13%, Calvinist 7%, Muslim 5.5%, other 2.5%, none 41% (2002)
Here's the United States:
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
Here's Great Britain:
Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%, Muslim 2.7%, Hindu 1%, other 1.6%, unspecified or none 23.1% (2001 census)
Here's Germany:
Protestant 34%, Roman Catholic 34%, Muslim 3.7%, unaffiliated or other 28.3%
Here's Libya:
Sunni Muslim 97%, other 3%
Egypt:
Muslim (mostly Sunni) 90%, Coptic 9%, other Christian 1%
Algeria:
Sunni Muslim (state religion) 99%, Christian and Jewish 1%
Saudi Arabia
Muslim 100%
You can say that all the religions tolerate each other equally, but the old saying is the proof is in the pudding. Christian countries are diverse and Muslim are pretty much just Muslim. So by just looking at the stats, a sane man would come to the conclusion that the Muslim countries are NOT tolerant since they all used to be pretty close to 100% Christian 1500 years ago and now have almost none.
And please don't give the bull that the western countries are almost all Christian. True, but that is not a religion. Protestants and Catholics have been at odds since the 1500's and here we are side by side. In addition, these countries have been Christian and have stayed Christian. They were not Christian and then became completely Muslim. Also, look at how MANY religions there are in the western countries. The lists are long. The Muslim countries lists are obviously short.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I guess you could call the Islam, the Christians and Judaism as 'intolerant'. 
