Islam:Peaceful and Tolerant?

[ianb321red]

Christianity is taking entirely too much credit if it assumes that Western nations are enlightened because of it. Western nations are tolerant because of enlightenment principles, humanism, rational and empirical thought and observation. Religions the world over aren't really known for these things.

I'm sure that there are what we might describe as "Christian values" which when adhered to and practiced are beneficial to societies. I don't think anyone is claiming that Christianity and Christianity alone is responsible for some of the other principles you mentioned; clearly no religion can stake a claim to the work within the scientific community for example.
I would disagree with inclusion of humanism as being in any way forward thinking or beneficial to any element of society.

 

[Zoness]

I'm sure that there are what we might describe as "Christian values" which when adhered to and practiced are beneficial to societies. I don't think anyone is claiming that Christianity and Christianity alone is responsible for some of the other principles you mentioned; clearly no religion can stake a claim to the work within the scientific community for example.

Right, I don't there is any problem with most Christian values and I agree that when adhered to, they can be beneficial. The tone the OP was taking seemed to indicate that its a matter of Christian vs Muslim society, so I wanted to make the distinction.

I would disagree with inclusion of humanism as being in any way forward thinking or beneficial to any element of society.

That's a discussion for another thread, I suppose.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Some current news...

Turkish PM: “We also said we won’t do religious nationalism. In other words, we said we will protect the Muslim’s law, the Christian’s law, the Jew’s law, and even the atheist’s law,”

 

[Zoness]

Some current news...

Turkish PM: “We also said we won’t do religious nationalism. In other words, we said we will protect the Muslim’s law, the Christian’s law, the Jew’s law, and even the atheist’s law,”

Honestly, I don't buy it. I don't trust Erdogan as far as I could throw him. I'd have to see some proof that this was actually a thing he was committed to.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Muslims naturally insist that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion.

The Quran is a lot like the Bible in that it has elements that are peaceful and tolerant and other parts that aren't so peaceful or tolerant. If it ends up being peaceful and tolerant in actual practice has good deal to do with the manner of interpretation and the morality and kindness of the person doing the interpretation.

Scriptures (or books in general) often act like mirrors that reflect all our good and bad qualities back at us. One person can find cause to abuse, torment or kill and another can find motivation to help the poor, heal the sick, etc... from the same book.

 

[kenzo0]

The Quran is a lot like the Bible in that it has elements that are peaceful and tolerant and other parts that aren't so peaceful or tolerant.

hmmm...
Bible exist centuries before Quran..
Peaceful and tolerant in the Bible, you can find in the NT, the last teaching from Jesus Christ for His follower..
Peaceful and tolerant in the Quran, you can find in the Mekkan verses, the verses when Muhammad in weak position and small follower...

Aren't peaceful or tolerant in the Bible, you can find in the OT, the God commandment for one nation, through His chosen people..
Arent peaceful or tolerant in the Quran, you can find in the Medinian versed, the verses when Muhammad strong and had bigger follower

its just like taqiyya... when muslims weak they permitted to take kufar/infidel/non-muslims as their friend.. and live side by side with non-muslim
but when muslims strong they forbid to take kufar/infidel/non-muslims as their friend.


By the way, the last example... Bible=Jesus, Quran=Muhammad..
wich part in the Bible, you found Jesus gave weird deed examples for His follower?
how about Muhammad?

after his wealthy wife(i.e. Khadija) died, there's nobody support his life..
and this hadith show you how Muhammad pay his life expenses, with a lot of wives and slaves..

If it actually ends up being peaceful and tolerant in actual practice has good deal to do with the manner of interpretation and the morality and kindness of the person doing the interpretation.

maybe.
the big problem here is, peaceful and tolerant verses in the Quran was sent down when Muhammad weak in his early "prophethood", and the terror and violence sent down when Muhammad strong and those verses remained until his death

Holy books often act like mirrors that reflect all our good and bad qualities back at us. One person can find cause to abuse, torment or kill and another can find motivation to help the poor, heal the sick, etc... from the same book.

yup, I agree with you.
but, still.. as I posted earlier.. Quran verses are ambiguous, dualism, absurd..

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Generally speaking you are right, most Islamic nations aren't nearly as open as Western nations. Additionally, many Muslim populations live in abject poverty and have low education...I'm sure that's a much stronger correlation for poor behavior than the religion. If you could afford to educate the Muslim world to the standards of the Western world you'd find a lot less strict, literal adherence to their religion.

Christianity is taking entirely too much credit if it assumes that Western nations are enlightened because of it. Western nations are tolerant because of enlightenment principles, humanism, rational and empirical thought and observation. Religions the world over aren't really known for these things.

I do think there are certain cultural aspects of Europeans that have given them the advantage (unfair or otherwise) over the rest of the world during the last few centuries but I don't really see how Christianity fits into that. The Enlightenment may as well have happened if Islam dominated Europe and Christianity was the desert religion. As it stands, that wasn't the case.

To boil this all down the influences in Muslim countries are primarily prosperity oriented. A lack of wealth tends to mean stronger religious commitment. That same lack of wealth results in less education and again, a higher likeliness to do as culture demands and integrate into the cultural and religious demands of X.

How do Saudi Arabia et al fit into this?

 

[BruceDLimber]

as Muslims enjoy in Western "Christian" nations?

It is good that you set "Christian" in parentheses....

For the record, those are quotation marks, aka quotes.

Parentheses are like this: ().

Just in case you actually don't know the difference . . .

 

[Zoness]

How do Saudi Arabia et al fit into this?

It depends on what exactly your asking, I guess. I mean, I don't think of Saudi Arabia as a wealthy or prosperous nation. Sure there is immense wealth, but its only for oil magnates and Saudi princes. These people have a good understanding on control, using extreme forms of Islam as their functional peacekeeper.

 

[ianb321red]

Right, I don't there is any problem with most Christian values and I agree that when adhered to, they can be beneficial. The tone the OP was taking seemed to indicate that its a matter of Christian vs Muslim society, so I wanted to make the distinction.

I'm not actually sure there is such a thing as a Christian society; at least not in a comparable way versus an Islamic society i.e. by comparing legal systems..

Of course, it depends on how we define Islamic society - I would define it as one that operates Sharia...but others may differ in what their definition one is...

So to go back to the OP#1, an Islamic country/ society should be defined as one that operates Sharia, so.....

"Muslims naturally insist that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion.

Can anyone think of an Islamic country under Sharia law that gives it's citizens the same freedom and opportunity to practice Judaism and Christianity as Muslims enjoy in Western "Christian" nations?

Is this a fair test of whether a religion is peaceful and tolerant?"

 

[Danny777]

I'm not actually sure there is such a thing as a Christian society; at least not in a comparable way versus an Islamic society i.e. by comparing legal systems..

Of course, it depends on how we define Islamic society - I would define it as one that operates Sharia...but others may differ in what their definition one is...

So to go back to the OP#1, an Islamic country/ society should be defined as one that operates Sharia, so.....

"Muslims naturally insist that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion.

Can anyone think of an Islamic country under Sharia law that gives it's citizens the same freedom and opportunity to practice Judaism and Christianity as Muslims enjoy in Western "Christian" nations?

Is this a fair test of whether a religion is peaceful and tolerant?"

I can't think of any Islamic country that practices Sharia law that is tolerant of Judaism and Christianity. To be honest, I can think of any mildly Islamic country that welcomes/encourages the practice of Judaism or Christianity.

Another question: If there was such thing as a nation being totally run on Christian values, would the practice of Islam be permissible? I would say yes as there cannot be any compulsion in Christianity.

 

[Zoness]

I'm not actually sure there is such a thing as a Christian society; at least not in a comparable way versus an Islamic society i.e. by comparing legal systems..

An important distinction. I use the term contextually for the thread. For example, I vehemently oppose the thought that the United States is a "Christian Nation".

But you do make a great point; Christianity doesn't really have something that is the comparable to Sharia law. I think this has been tremendously beneficial to Western society as its not a code of law for nation-states like Sharia is. Much Biblical justification was and is used for the passing of legislation through the centuries but the Bible by nature isn't the blueprint for a code of law.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But you do make a great point; Christianity doesn't really have something that is the comparable to Sharia law.

Maybe not quite the same, and certainly no longer current, but the Code of Justinian of the Byzantine Empire had a great influence on law codes throughout Europe, up to and including the Napoleonic Code.

"Numerous provisions served to secure the status of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, uniting Church and state, and making anyone who was not connected to the Christian church a non-citizen."

 

[Danny777]

But you do make a great point; Christianity doesn't really have something that is the comparable to Sharia law. I think this has been tremendously beneficial to Western society as its not a code of law for nation-states like Sharia is. Much Biblical justification was and is used for the passing of legislation through the centuries but the Bible by nature isn't the blueprint for a code of law.

This is true. Jesus never encouraged followers to institute a state law. He talked much more of a personal code of conduct for use within society as opposed to in order to control society.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Muslims naturally insist that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion.

No, we insist that is the only correct and completely just religion.

Can anyone think of an Islamic country that gives it's citizens the same freedom and opportunity to practice Judaism and Christianity as Muslims enjoy in Western "Christian" nations?

You mean countries that make it a habit to make laws to spy on and give harsher punishments to Muslims even if they don't say it so clearly? And by doing so they basically go against what they say they stand for & what their laws said?

Anyways, there are no Islaamic countries today, unfortunately. But there were in the past. And the world was a better place with them.

I can't think of any Islamic country that practices Sharia law that is tolerant of Judaism and Christianity. To be honest, I can think of any mildly Islamic country that welcomes/encourages the practice of Judaism or Christianity.

I can't think of any country that rules by shari'ah, period. Which is very unfortunate. There might be pockets where it is enforced, but they are far and few in between.

As for the past, well....

Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) was the 1st caliph after the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died. And here is what he wrote to the non-Muslims of Najran:

'In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is the written statement of God's slave Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God. He affirms for you the rights of a protected neighbor, in yourselves, your lands, your religious community, your wealth, retainers, and servants, those of you who are present or abroad, your bishops and monks, and monasteries, and all that you own, be it great or small. You shall not be deprived of any of it, and shall have full control over it.' (Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 79)

The 2nd caliph said:

This is the protection which the servant of Allah, Umar ibn Al Khattab, the commander of the faithful extends to them (non-Muslims): 'The safeguarding of their lives, property, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches are not to be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will not be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be harmed. None of the Jews will live with them in Illiya' (Jersusalem). (Tarikh At-Tabari, Volume 3, p. 609)

and here is what Will Durrant, a historian, wrote:

At the time of the Umayyad caliphate, the people of the covenant, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Sabians, all enjoyed degree of tolerance that we do not find even today in Christian countries. They were free to practice the rituals of their religion and their churches and temples were preserved. They enjoyed autonomy in that they were subject to the religious laws of the scholars and judges. (Will Durant, The Story Of Civilization, Volume 13. p. 131-132)

Much more here:

The Status of Non-Muslims In the Islamic State

Another question: If there was such thing as a nation being totally run on Christian values, would the practice of Islam be permissible? I would say yes as there cannot be any compulsion in Christianity.

Practically this has never happened to the best of my knowledge. Whenever religious Christians have had power over people of other religions, they oppressed them, tortured them, killed them, etc. Take Palestine before the Muslims took over, Palestine when the Crusaders were fighting for it, Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, etc.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Whenever religious Christians have had power over people of other religions, they oppressed them, tortured them, killed them, etc.

Not just for people of other religions, but for other denominations of Christianity. In Puritan Massachusetts in the 17th century, Quakers were persecuted, banished, and/or executed.

'Heretics' were often treated worse than 'heathens'.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I can't think of any Islamic country that practices Sharia law that is tolerant of Judaism and Christianity. To be honest, I can think of any mildly Islamic country that welcomes/encourages the practice of Judaism or Christianity.

Most countries that don't have at least some level of separation of church and state and that tend toward the theocratic usually are not that tolerant or welcoming of other people. That's what happens when the fundamentalist right wing has to much influence over a government.

We in the West really didn't start ameliorating such problems until our countries started moving in a more secular direction and the churches lost their stranglehold over politics. Most any religion can be a terror when it has to much control in the secular / governmental arena. Interestingly as the churches lost power you also started to see them move in a more progressive and open minded direction. Loss of power coupled with laws protecting the right to convert and proselytize might be the first step toward reformation in the Islamic world too. When you can't kill heretics and keep people inline through law you actually have to make your religion attractive to people and use the carrot rather than the stick.

 

[Illuminaughty]

RE: forcing religions to use the carrot rather than stick and protecting both the right to proselytize and to convert leading to less extremism -

If you tell a women "if you join our religion you don't get to drive a car, you have to wear a full burka, and your husband can beat you." <- That might not be especially attractive to women. If they can't use force to insure that women will abide by this and they still want their religion to grow and be respected they will have to lighten up and move into the 21st century. Separation of church and state opens the field up to competition and then people will need to offer the best product if they want anyone to buy. I have little doubt the more moderate Islamic groups (or other religions all together) will offer a better product for women than the far right fundamentalists will.

 

[Arthra]

Earlier on this thread I posted information about Jordan and Dubat UAE..

There is also the Kingdom of Morocco that tolerates Christianity and Judaism as well as the Baha'i Faith...

See:

Morocco

although there have been some restrictions..and earlier persecutions...

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai_Faith_in_Morocco

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010/148834.htm

 

[kenzo0]

I can't think of any country that rules by shari'ah, period. Which is very unfortunate.

then I will give you an example one city which rules by sharia.
Indonesia: Local Sharia Laws Violate Rights in Aceh | Human Rights Watch

even, I could give you the latest news about this, which recorded or and untold story.
I don't see there's peace and tolerant after the sharia applied in this city.

As for the past, well....

Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) was the 1st caliph after the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died. And here is what he wrote to the non-Muslims of Najran:

'In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is the written statement of God's slave Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God. He affirms for you the rights of a protected neighbor, in yourselves, your lands, your religious community, your wealth, retainers, and servants, those of you who are present or abroad, your bishops and monks, and monasteries, and all that you own, be it great or small. You shall not be deprived of any of it, and shall have full control over it.' (Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 79)

The 2nd caliph said:

This is the protection which the servant of Allah, Umar ibn Al Khattab, the commander of the faithful extends to them (non-Muslims): 'The safeguarding of their lives, property, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches are not to be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will not be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be harmed. None of the Jews will live with them in Illiya' (Jersusalem). (Tarikh At-Tabari, Volume 3, p. 609)

and here is what Will Durrant, a historian, wrote:

At the time of the Umayyad caliphate, the people of the covenant, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Sabians, all enjoyed degree of tolerance that we do not find even today in Christian countries. They were free to practice the rituals of their religion and their churches and temples were preserved. They enjoyed autonomy in that they were subject to the religious laws of the scholars and judges. (Will Durant, The Story Of Civilization, Volume 13. p. 131-132)

Much more here:

The Status of Non-Muslims In the Islamic State

too sweet, and refuse to see the reality.
You speaks about jizya like if jizya were ordinary tax for citizens.
Lets talk about the fact..
I believe you know that there are Christians population in Najran, even before your prophet won over Medina, and sent treaty letter to the Christians of Najran which ordered them to pay jizya if they won't embrace Islam, or they will killed.
Jizya was tax for non muslim(in this case Christianity)to redeem their freedom to practise their religion.
The Christians have to pay jizya for their freedom to practice religious things beside regular tax as citizens.

Before Muhammad came, the Christians can practice their religion freely, likewise the Jews. But there different story after Muhammad rules the region.
I quote from your link:
Jizya ensures the safety of the disbelievers in the Muslim land. (Wahba Al Zuhayli, Al Fiqh Al Islami wa adilatuhu, p. 5879)
Muslim land? The land belong to non Muslim, long before islam exist.
I will give you the other reality, and proof that jizya were not merely tax for citizens but its tax to redeem their life and freedom.
Killed for not paying jizya: Egypt Christians Killed for Not Paying 'Jizya' Tax - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

Practically this has never happened to the best of my knowledge. Whenever religious Christians have had power over people of other religions, they oppressed them, tortured them, killed them, etc. Take Palestine before the Muslims took over, Palestine when the Crusaders were fighting for it, Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, etc.

I wouldn't deny or pretend it's nothing happened.
I aware about how cruel they were, the violations by Christians and even the church in the past.

BUT,
do you know what is the different between Christianity and Islam?
In Christianity the Christians never told or commanded to violence one another..and its Holy Book(i.e. Bible) never recorded Jesus gave Christians instruction to oppressed, torture, or even kill people when they have power.
NO! Christians prohibited to do such a thing.
OTHERWISE, Islam encourages its follower, and those command and instruction all over its literature..

Why I stated like this?
because its true, it was the fact.
"Catholic Church did apology in the
[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]year 2000[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]for the past sins of its members"[/FONT]




God bless