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.
Please do not assume ISIS is the standard for Islam. Yes, we do have our share of evil prone people and yes they are my enemy just as much as they are the enemy of non-Muslims.
But does it?
The history of Islam doesn't quite match up with that claim.
Also, you are asking for a close discernment on the part of the rest of the world, to separate you from the inconvenient sects that keep popping up that you say are different from you, but which stem from the same exact texts and that draw millions of followers.
In addition, Islam has an undeniable intolerance for polytheism. Often, Christianity is interpreted as polytheist. Last, the indigenous religion of Europeans is polytheist and we have many polytheists within our nations.
So, as long as you tolerate intolerance to polytheism, that often has turned murderous, why should we grant you a close parsing of the "good guys" who believe in an intolerant religion, and the "bad guys" who believe in an intolerant religion?
I believe that any intolerance is an analogy for other intolerances, especially when race and peaceful / non-confrontational religion is concerned. Thus, you are requesting the equivalent of us parsing the "peaceful" National Socialists from the "violent" National Socialists. But that's not what we do in this nation. We give none of them a pass. So, why should we give so called peaceful Muslims a pass when they harbor such a vicious intolerance in their ideology?
The history of Islam doesn't quite match up with that claim.
Also, you are asking for a close discernment on the part of the rest of the world, to separate you from the inconvenient sects that keep popping up that you say are different from you, but which stem from the same exact texts and that draw millions of followers.
In addition, Islam has an undeniable intolerance for polytheism. Often, Christianity is interpreted as polytheist. Last, the indigenous religion of Europeans is polytheist and we have many polytheists within our nations.
So, as long as you tolerate intolerance to polytheism, that often has turned murderous, why should we grant you a close parsing of the "good guys" who believe in an intolerant religion, and the "bad guys" who believe in an intolerant religion?
I believe that any intolerance is an analogy for other intolerances, especially when race and peaceful / non-confrontational religion is concerned. Thus, you are requesting the equivalent of us parsing the "peaceful" National Socialists from the "violent" National Socialists. But that's not what we do in this nation. We give none of them a pass. So, why should we give so called peaceful Muslims a pass when they harbor such a vicious intolerance in their ideology?
Islam is very individualistic. there is no organization called Islam. Islam is the personal act of submitting to God(swt) not a group. No person or group represents Islam. We each represent only our self. We have no ordained clergy, no membership, no central leader. We are individuals that have the commonality of performing the Action of Islam (Submitting to God). I speak only for myself, representing only myself and no other Muslim speaks for me or represents me..
Please do not assume ISIS is the standard for Islam. Yes, we do have our share of evil prone people and yes they are my enemy just as much as they are the enemy of non-Muslims.
The cause is not because the Qur'an corrupts them but because they corrupt the Qur'an. They deliberately seek out words that they can misconstrue as support of their deeds.
In today's world of the internet the anti-Islamic factions have rapidly given a source and easy means to spread corrupt interpretations of the Qur'an. Perhaps their goal was/is to sway people away from Islam, but a side effect is they are showing the evil ones how to use the Qur'an to support their evil actions.
A person who truly loves Allaah(swt) and all of mankind will never find a singly clause in the Qur'an that supports aggression or the mistreatment of others.
Your example shows this rather clearly:
The word that is being translated as intimates (Friends) is Wali. Wali is not the same as Saddiq(friend) We are permitted and even encouraged to be a saddiq to non-Muslims and to have non-Muslims as Saddiq.
We are not to take a non-Muslim as a Wali. A wali is a person we grant control of our life to and trust fully to guide us on the path of Islam. Our wali will give up his life to be certain we will follow Islam properly. It would not be right or justifiable to expect a non-Muslim to give up his life to support Islam.
I could very easily have you as my Saddiq and most likely would consider you as such if I where to meet you in person. But I would never expect you to defend Islam or to perpetuate Islam or to be a person who desires to see Islam grow. It would be an Injustice to both of us if I where to ask you to be my wali.
Like wise the word Kafirun (Plural of Kafir) that is being mistranslated as Infidels, is much deeper than a person who does not believe. It is a person who not only does not believe but is also dedicated to destroy all who do believe if they can not change their beliefs. A kafir has taken a stance of War against Allaah(swt) and all who perform Islam. They do not have a "Live and let live" attitude, their stance is "Cease your belief or get the Hell out" they display actual enmity and hatred towards all Muslims.
ISIS represents a fraction of 1% of the total Muslim population. Even if there were 10 million ISIS members (overly exaggerated number for the sake of using an example), that would still account for less than 1% so, the idea that Islam is to be blamed for ISIS's ideology is ridiculous. I just read through a 3 book long (~1800 pages) biography of the prophet and there wasn't a single page in there that gave me this idea that Islam is what people make it to be. Even in the topic of non-Muslims in Muslim land:
Quote:
The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (part 7 of 13): The Right to Follow Their Religious Laws Description: The right of non-Muslims to follow their own laws and are not under compulsion to follow Islamic Law.
By Imam Kamil Mufti (Originally by Dr. Saleh al-Aayed)
Published on 25 Jul 2006 - Last modified on 04 Jan 2015
Viewed: 69737 (daily average: 20) - Rating: 4.2 out of 5 - Rated by: 5
Printed: 1556 - Emailed: 6 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles > Current Issues > Islam and Non-Muslims Islam does not compel non-Muslims citizens living in Muslim lands to be ruled by Islamic Laws. They are exempt from paying the zakah[1]. Under Islamic Law, a Muslim who does not pay the zakah and refuses its obligation becomes an unbeliever. Also, Islamic Law requires military duty from able Muslims, but non-Muslims are exempt from it, even though it is of benefit to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In return for these two exemptions, non-Muslim citizens pay a nominal tax known as jizya. Sir Thomas Arnold wrote, ‘The jizya was so light that it did not constitute a burden on them, especially when we observe that it exempted them from compulsory military service that was an obligation for their fellow citizens, the Muslims.’[2]
Islam also permitted non-Muslims to observe their civil law in matters such as marriage and divorce. Regarding criminal justice, Muslim jurists would pass sentences on non-Muslims in issues considered sinful in their religion such as theft, but exempted them from issues they held to be permissible such as drinking wine and eating pork.[3] This is based clearly of the practice of the Prophet himself when he first came to Medina and established a ‘constitution’. He allowed for individual tribes who were not Muslims to refer to their own religious scriptures and their learned men in regards to their own personal affairs. They could though, if they opted, ask the Prophet to judge between them in their matters. God says in the Quran: "…If they do come to you, either judge between them or decline to interfere…" (Quran 5:42)
Here we see that Prophet allowed each religion to judge in their own matters according to their own scriptures, as long as it did not stand in opposition to articles of the constitution, a pact which took into account the greater benefit of the peaceful co-existence of the society.
Umar ibn Abdulaziz, a Muslim ruler, found it hard to accept how non-Muslims continued to follow their social regulations that went against the Islamic injunctions. He wrote a letter to Hasan al-Basri[4] seeking his legal advice, saying, ‘How is it that the Rightly-Guided Caliphs before us left the People of the Covenant as they did, marrying close relatives[5], and keeping pigs and wine?’ Hasan’s responded, ‘They paid the jizya so that they could be left to practice what they believed, and you may only follow the Islamic Law, not invent something new.’[6]
The People of the Covenant had their own courts to settle their disputes, but if they wished, they could resort to Islamic courts. God commanded His Prophet: "So if they come to you, (O Muhammad), judge between them or turn away from them. And if you turn away from them never will they harm you at all. And if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed, God loves those who act justly." (Quran 5:42)
Adam Metz, a Western historian, writes in the Islamic Civilization in the Fourth Century of the Hegira:
"Since the Islamic Law was specifically for Muslims, the Islamic state allowed the people of other religious affiliations to their own courts. What we know about these courts is that they were church courts and prominent spiritual leaders were the chief justices. They wrote a great number of books on canon law, and their rulings were not confined to matters of personal status. They included such problems as inheritance and much of the litigations between Christians that did not involve the state."[7]
Therefore, it can be seen that Islam did not punish non-Muslims for doing what they viewed as permissible according to their religious law, such as consuming alcohol or eating pork, even though they are forbidden in Islam. The tolerance extended by Islam towards non-Muslims is unmatched by any other religious law, secular government, or political system in existence even today. Gustav LeBon writes:
"The Arabs could have easily been blinded by their first conquests, and committed the injustices that are usually committed by conquerors. They could have mistreated their defeated opponents or forced them to embrace their religion, which they wished to spread all over the world. But the Arabs avoided that. The early caliphs, who had a political genius that was rare in proponents of new religion, realized that religions and systems are not imposed by force. So they treated the people of Syria, Egypt, Spain, and every country they took over with great kindness, as we have seen. They left their laws, regulations, and beliefs intact and only imposed on them the jizya, which was paltry when compared to what they had been paying in taxes previously, in exchange for maintaining their security. The truth is that nations had never known conquerors more tolerant than the Muslims, or a religion more tolerant than Islam."[8]
Footnotes:[1] Zakah: one of the pillars of Islam. It is a obligatory charity paid on certain forms of wealth.
[2] Arnold, Thomas, ‘Invitation to Islam,’ p. 77
[3] Maududi, Abul ‘Ala, ‘The Rights of The People of Covenant In The Islamic State,’ p. 20-21
[4] Hasan al-Basri: one of the most eminent scholars from the second generation of Muslims known for his asceticism and knowledge. He was born in Medina in 642 CE, the son of a slave captured in Maysan, who was freed by the Prophet’s secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit. He was brought up in Basra, Iraq. Hasan met many Companions and transmitted many reports of Prophet Muhammad. His mother served Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet. He died in Basra in 728 CE at the age of 88.
[5] The Zoroastrians to this day deem it permissible to marry their own siblings.
[6] Maududi, Abul ‘Ala, ‘The Rights Of The People of Covenant In The Islamic State,’ p. 22
[7] Metz, Adam, ‘Islamic Civilization in the Fourth Century of the Hegira,’ vol 1, p. 85
[8] Lebon, G, ‘The Civilization Of The Arabs,’ p. 605
There's a lot of selective quoting of Quran and Hadith by many people across many discussion boards and even on tv/radio but, people are too quick to simply accept whatever is told to them without really putting much thought into it. The post above is just one example which refutes the idea that Islam is some barbaric religion whose ultimate goal is to slay all "infidels". If people want to know what a real Islamic state is, I recommend reading a real biography on the prophet. Don't look at places like Saudi Arabia and think they're the poster child of what an Islamic state is because they are far from it.
ISIS represents a fraction of 1% of the total Muslim population. Even if there were 10 million ISIS members (overly exaggerated number for the sake of using an example), that would still account for less than 1% so, the idea that Islam is to be blamed for ISIS's ideology is ridiculous.
Generally 1% is an insignificant % in many cases.
But in the case of Islam, 1% of 1.5 billion is 15 million.
Within the psychology community it is often stated 1% of humans have psychopathic tendencies [psychopaths] of various types and degrees.
Therefore 15 million Muslims are psychopaths of various degrees.
What is most critical in Islam is, >55% of the 6,236 verses in the Quran contain evil laden elements.
Like how violent materials in movies and other medias influence vulnerable children [and adults] to be violent in later life, the evil and violent elements in the Quran [i.e. Islam] subliminally influenced and compelled SOME evil prone Muslims [from the pool of 15 million] to commit terrible evils and violence on non-Muslims and even other Muslims.
The terrible violence by SOME Muslims is a reality which I do not have to provide proofs because it is public knowledge.
1% of psychopaths in any large group of humans is very conservative.
By the Principles of the Bell Curve and human nature, it is like 20% of humans [including Muslims] have potential evil [secular not theological] tendencies.
This mean the potential pool of evil prone Muslims is 300 million.
This potential pool of 300 million is a serious threat because it only took 18++ to do a 911 and even lone wolf[s] can create much horrors and terrors.
Quote:
I just read through a 3 book long (~1800 pages) biography of the prophet and there wasn't a single page in there that gave me this idea that Islam is what people make it to be. Even in the topic of non-Muslims in Muslim land:
Which book?
Note the popular book on the life of Muhammad by by Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, which reveal much negativity on Muhammad.
Generally whatever is written by Muslims are very bias due to the default emotional attachments Muslims have for their own religion.
All the Abrahamic religions are labeled as "faith", i.e. beliefs without proofs nor reasons.
In general, no Abrahamic religionists, Muslim in this case, would ever want to acknowledge to whatever negative is in their holy texts and doctrines.
There's a lot of selective quoting of Quran and Hadith by many people across many discussion boards and even on tv/radio but, people are too quick to simply accept whatever is told to them without really putting much thought into it. The post above is just one example which refutes the idea that Islam is some barbaric religion whose ultimate goal is to slay all "infidels". If people want to know what a real Islamic state is, I recommend reading a real biography on the prophet. Don't look at places like Saudi Arabia and think they're the poster child of what an Islamic state is because they are far from it.
I suggest you read the Quran objectively and you will realize the true picture of Islam which contain both good and evil elements.
It is the inevitable 'evil' elements that is an issue when they interact with SOME evil prone Muslims [from a pool of 300 millions].
Islam is very individualistic. there is no organization called Islam. Islam is the personal act of submitting to God(swt) not a group. No person or group represents Islam. We each represent only our self. We have no ordained clergy, no membership, no central leader. We are individuals that have the commonality of performing the Action of Islam (Submitting to God). I speak only for myself, representing only myself and no other Muslim speaks for me or represents me..
If that were true, then Pakistan would not exist. Saudi Arabia would not exist. Qatar would not exist. Caliphates would not exist or have ever existed. ISIS would not exist. There would be no push for Sharia Law, anywhere, ever. There would not be any nation in which Islam is the official religion. There would not be a consistent history of religion motivated murder, when people will not convert, up until the present day.
The truth of the matter is that your assertions are disingenuous and politically motivated. Islam asserts itself as a group political power, and takes as much control as possible, whenever it is feasible to do so. It almost never misses that opportunity. It is not individualistic.
In any case, even if what I said was not true (it is), the religious intolerance is still fundamental to Islam and as such represents a danger to any other groups that live in its proximity.
If that were true, then Pakistan would not exist. Saudi Arabia would not exist. Qatar would not exist. Caliphates would not exist or have ever existed. ISIS would not exist. There would be no push for Sharia Law, anywhere, ever. There would not be any nation in which Islam is the official religion. There would not be a consistent history of religion motivated murder, when people will not convert, up until the present day.
The truth of the matter is that your assertions are disingenuous and politically motivated. Islam asserts itself as a group political power, and takes as much control as possible, whenever it is feasible to do so. It almost never misses that opportunity. It is not individualistic.
In any case, even if what I said was not true (it is), the religious intolerance is still fundamental to Islam and as such represents a danger to any other groups that live in its proximity.
there are 49 Islamic nations and numerous assorted Muslim organizations but not one represents any group except them self. They differ as much if not more than the differences between the USA and North Korea. Indonesia is nothing like Mauritania which is nothing like Turkey which is nothing like Lebanon which is nothing like Chad.
there is no central agency or group that represents Islam. Although at times some claim to such as
Saudi, Iraq and ISIS
there are 49 Islamic nations and numerous assorted Muslim organizations but not one represents any group except them self. They differ as much if not more than the differences between the USA and North Korea. Indonesia is nothing like Mauritania which is nothing like Turkey which is nothing like Lebanon which is nothing like Chad.
there is no central agency or group that represents Islam. Although at times some claim to such as
Saudi, Iraq and ISIS
One thing all the 49 Islamic nations has in common is they all are driven by the same one and ONLY Quran recited by Muhammad via Gabriel and from Allah.
The Sunni [appx. 80%] of the Muslims share the same Ahadiths with slight variations.
One thing all the 49 Islamic nations has in common is they all are driven by the same one and ONLY Quran recited by Muhammad via Gabriel and from Allah.
The Sunni [appx. 80%] of the Muslims share the same Ahadiths with slight variations.
I made an error when I said 49 Islamic nations. There are 49 Muslim majority nations but only 2 claim to be Islamic, KSA and Iran.
What would be the reaction if they were done by Muslims?
I voted that it would be considered Islamic terrorism. It seems that people who represent as "Christian", especially if they are white, get a pass on so many things.
We have had terrorists IN THIS COUNTRY for over 100 years - They are called the Klan. The KKK hates blacks, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, immigrants, Asians, Hispanics, Gays and anyone who is not a white, Anglo Saxon Protestant. They have tortured people, killed them, maimed them, hung them, bombed their places of worship - and more.
Why has nothing been done about the Klan?
Suddenly, Islamophobia has overtaken the US, when most Muslims live normal and productive lives. These "Christian" militia people do not. they are not doctors or other professionals. My children's first pediatrician was Islamic, as were the other partners. They were kind, knowlegable and professional in every way. I have also seen Muslims harassed on CD by certain bullies. One CD friend of mine, stopped posting because of hate mail and bullying from a specific poster - who had troubles of his own.
Really, what has the Bundy Klan - or even the Duggars done that is productive? Nothing. Not a thing.
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.
Islam does not compel non-Muslims citizens living in Muslim lands to be ruled by Islamic Laws. They are exempt from paying the zakah
