Islam:Peaceful and Tolerant?

[Masihi]

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,”

LOL as if that means anything to anyone

Muslims naturally insist that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant 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?

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

You are new here. Do not be surprised by the mundane "devils advocacy" responses from the nuts that frequent this forum.

Somewhat unfortunate for Christians is the statement Christ made to Paul...
"my power is made perfect in your weakness" which refers to the Christians never-ending need to repent and seek Gds forgiveness. This means we go the way of Christ if need be.

There is no political correctness in Islamic nations which means Christianity is not permitted to exist. Even though there is no salvation except by way of Christ, Gd has permitted this gift to disappear in certain Islamic nations.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Jizya was tax for non muslim(in this case Christianity)to redeem their freedom to practise their religion.

Misleading.

The jizya is a tax which serves as an alternative to having to serve in the military.

The US used EXACTLY the same system during the Civil War, when those preferring to avoid being drafted into the army could pay a tax instead.

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Harry3142]

The problem within Christianity is the success of the knight-works-exegesis argument. This form of arguing is used by some of the radical denominations/sects as 'evidence' that their particular church denomination/sect is ordained by God, while all other churches are under his curse.

The way that it's used is this: A person comes up with an agenda which he wants to promote. He then looks through Scripture in order to find verses, and even 1/2 verses, which by themselves can be used as 'evidence' that his agenda is correct. He then sews these verses together in a quiltlike fashion, and uses the result as 'evidence' of his agenda's conforming to what God wants of us. This tactic was used extensively in the decades leading up to the American Civl War by those whose true agenda was to promote slavery as conforming to God's will. I myself even saw it used in an attempt to promote the philosophy and tactics of the Ku klux Klan in the 1960's.

What people who use this tactic count on is what I call 'the avalanche attack'. They claim that a certain action should be taken, and then 'bury' the person under a pile of verses which they've pulled out of Holy Writ as 'evidence' that what they've just said is scriptural. By hitting their intended target with so many different verses at once they hope for the target to simply accept that they are telling him the truth without his looking up those verses in order to see how they are used in their original passages. They know that they have lost the argument if their target tells them to write down every verse which they've used as a reference so that the target can check them for himself in the context of the passages out of which they were taken.

Circa 1970 I had a neighbor actually tell me that my wife and I must not read any verses except for the ones which her particular sect claimed were evidence of their being correct. This was told us when she gave us her sect's Bible study in pamphlet form. Her words were, "Don't read any verses except for the verse which is given as the answer to the questions. Don't read any verses which are in front of that verse, or come after that verse. In cases where a 1/2 verse is given as the answer, don't even read the other 1/2 of that same verse. It might confuse you." Needless to say, the socalled Bible study was a total farce, having taken verses completely out of context in order to gain an advantage for their sect.

I suspect that the same tactic is being used by the unscrupulous who want to use Islam's Quran to promote their own agenda. Just as those who have no fear of God's wrath use The Holy Bible as nothing more than a tool in order to achieve personal gain, there are those having no fear of Allah's wrath who are using the Quran as nothing more than a tool in order for them to achieve personal gain.

The way to defeat such people is to study Holy Writ. In our case my wife and I were both already familiar with the passages which the verses and 1/2 verses had been taken from by this sect, so we were able to see their deception as soon as we looked at their 'Bible Study'. Those who are muslims need to study the Quran in depth, so that when someone approaches them saying that they are to obey him and do what he tells them to do, and he uses verses from the Quran as 'evidence' of his being correct, they can quickly realize whether he is actually correct, or instead deliberately trying to lead them astray in order to achieve his own agenda.

 

[All Englands Skies]

no one can prove muslims oppressed Christians, to the contrary the crusades were barbaric and merciless.
Arab Christians fought them side by side with the Muslims

Ah, so you mean laws in Islamic countries that punish those who convert to Christianity (and people who convert to other religions) are just a figment of the imagination, even though there actually written in there laws for all to see?

One Example, the sack of Amorium 838ad was a bloodbath, no diffrent to what the Crusaders did when they sacked cities, but that doesnt prove Muslims oppressed the Christian inhabitants, yet the Crusades does prove Christians are oppressors?

What is it with you Muslims, you actually delude yourselves into thinking you do nothing wrong?

 

[kenzo0]

Misleading.

The jizya is a tax which serves as an alternative to having to serve in the military.

The US used EXACTLY the same system during the Civil War, when those preferring to avoid being drafted into the army could pay a tax instead.

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce

ow..ow... don't talk as they are equal, bro.. definitely they are not.
Did the US gave options to embrace any religion? or death?
the people who avoid being an army, they can just easily pay tax...and that's it.
B
U
T
for Christians who not pay jizya, they will killed. do I need to show you an example which happened recently in our day?
I recall, I have posted it in another thread, how the Christians killed after refused to pay jizya.


It was not simple as you said, bro.
there's not only "become an army or pay tax"
BUT, "embrace islam/pay tax/die"




God bless

 

[kenzo0]

Ah, so you mean laws in Islamic countries that punish those who convert to Christianity (and people who convert to other religions) are just a figment of the imagination, even though there actually written in there laws for all to see?

not only in Islamic country, the muslims even apply it in other country which do not rules under Islamic law(sharia).
some even forced to recited the syahadah after their news of leaving islam heard by muslims.

One Example, the sack of Amorium 838ad was a bloodbath, no diffrent to what the Crusaders did when they sacked cities, but that doesnt prove Muslims oppressed the Christian inhabitants, yet the Crusades does prove Christians are oppressors?

What is it with you Muslims, you actually delude yourselves into thinking you do nothing wrong?

absolutely they not do any error/bad deed, for what they do just follow their literature's command

 

[Zoness]

Misleading.

The jizya is a tax which serves as an alternative to having to serve in the military.

The US used EXACTLY the same system during the Civil War, when those preferring to avoid being drafted into the army could pay a tax instead.

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce

The elephant in the room on the jizya or any tax is that it just reinforces the state-sponsored monopoly on violence. Nation-states can commit violence to enforce their function, but nobody else can. Ah, sorry my anarcho-capitalist leanings were leaking out there.

If we extrapolate the behavior of nation states now I think its fair to say that like refusing to pay taxes in the US, there would be strict penalties for not paying the Jizya. Time to Wikipedia it up:

Punishment for failure to pay taxes

According to Abu Yusuf, jurist of Harun al-Rashid, those who didn't pay jizya should be imprisoned not to be let out of custody until payment.[74] Though it was an annual tax, non-Muslims were allowed to pay it in monthly installments.[12] If someone had agreed to pay jizya, leaving Muslim territory for non-Muslim land was, in theory, punishable by enslavement if they were ever captured. This punishment did not apply if the person had suffered injustices from Muslims.[75]

In practice, non-payment of jizya tax, or the associated Kharaj tax, by any non-Muslim subject in a Muslim state was punished by his family's arrest and enslavement.[76][77][78] The women and girls of an enslaved family would become property of a Muslim master and serve as houseworkers and female sex slaves (raqiq or baghiya).[79][80] A non-Muslim could avoid arrest or stop paying the jizya tax any time by converting to Islam as it was a punishment for not accepting Islam, and he was constantly reminded of this.[81] In some regions of Islamic rule, the Sultans faced rebellion and the non-Muslim masses refused to convert to Islam or pay jizya.[82] Militant opposition erupted to Islamic punishment for refusal to pay discriminatory jizya taxes, such as in India, Spain and Morocco.[58][83][84] In some cases, this led to its periodic abolishment such as the 1704 AD suspension of jizya in Deccan region of India by Aurangzeb.[85]

So just as modern states operate, there is punishment for not paying a tax. The difference being the tax levied against you because you don't believe in the same desert God as the ruler of that particular state.

 

[BruceDLimber]

... because you don't believe in the same desert God as the ruler of that particular state.

Save that at least some of us stipulate that there is only one God and that all the great religions spring from this same God.

So while religions may differ, this doesn't mean that the god in question has to....

And I also note that the other respondant reduced the alternative to being killed, probably another distortion given the imprisonment-or-slavery options you state.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Deacon Don]

That "religion of peace" isn't a tolerant religion. One must realize that
their esteemed prophet, Mohammad, was a murderer, forced people to
convert and had sex with a 9 year old.

As far as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition go, the Crusades were
to regain Jerusalem after it was overtaken by that "religion of peace". Some
of the Crusaders, who didn't behave as Christians, were told to stop being
brutal.

As for the Spanish Inquisition, what did they do that was Christian?

 

[BruceDLimber]

As far as the Crusades ... go, the Crusades were to regain Jerusalem after it was overtaken by that "religion of peace."

Which doesn't explain--or even admit!--the fact that the crusaders attacked and killed many Turkish Eastern Orthodox Christians on the way to Jerusalem!

So your defense is lacking, to say the least!


Bruce

 

[Deacon Don]

Which doesn't explain--or even admit!--the fact that the crusaders attacked and killed many Turkish Eastern Orthodox Christians on the way to Jerusalem!

So your defense is lacking, to say the least!


Bruce

No, my defense isn't lacking, in fact it still stands.

 

[Supreme]

There are Muslim countries where Christians are treated as almost equal citizens. Lebanon has laws ensuring Christians representation (I think the president must be a Maronite), Indonesia has one the largest Christian populations (22 million), Malaysia has a thriving Christian population, despite the recent Allah controversy, I believe that Kazakhstan and some other Central Asian nations have respect for their large Christian populations...

However, the Christian West is largely secular, and therefore doesn't persecute anybody- therefore Muslims are, rightly, afforded the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.

The Muslim world is very insecure. Just look at nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan- they are very scared of the powerful message of Christ and the Gospel, and so have to have very tight restrictions. They also associate Christianity with the West, and with American interference in Muslim lands.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

However, the Christian West is largely secular, and therefore doesn't persecute anybody- therefore Muslims are, rightly, afforded the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.

You're joking, right?

Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece for the Guardian about how the term terrorism (and its laws) basically only apply to Muslims:

Some insightful excerpts:

Prosecutors were not content to charge Morales with murder and related crimes. Instead, they charged him with crimes of "terrorism" under an anti-terrorism law that was enacted in New York in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. When enacting the law, the legislature stated that it is designed to ensure that terrorists "are prosecuted and punished in state courts with appropriate severity". Under the law, this newly created "terrorism" crime is committed whenever one acts with the "intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population", but the law contains no definition of that term.

At trial, Morales vehemently argued that what he was accused of doing could not possibly be "terrorism", but the prosecutors insisted - and the trial court agreed - that his violence "furthered the [gang]'s objective to intimidate or coerce other Mexican-American gangs in the Bronx and, as a result of those activities, the [gang] intended to intimidate and coerce the entire Mexican-American community." The jury found him guilty on all counts, including the "terrorism" charges, and the Court of Appeals set out to determine whether the terrorism charges were validly applied to this violence........

.......But the Court of Appeals went much further. It reversed the conviction on all of the counts - including the non-terrorism counts - and ordered a new trial. That was necessary, said the court, because there are special rules that govern a trial whenever a defendant is charged with "terrorism", and these rules are so permissive, so designed to ensure conviction, that it is inherently unfair to convict someone under these rules who is not charged with terrorism.....


.....And since the term "terrorism" has no discernible meaning other than "acts of violence committed by Arabs and/or Muslims against westerners", this illustrates why New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal was exactly right when, under the headline "Liberty and Justice for non-Muslims", he wrote:

t's rarely acknowledged that the [9/11] attacks have also led to what's essentially a separate justice system for Muslims. In this system, the principle of due process is twisted and selectively applied, if it is applied at all."
​

It's a separate system of justice so intrinsically unjust and unfair - designed to ensure that Muslims accused of "terrorism" have basically no chance of acquittal - that any trial that proceeds under its warped rules for non-terrorist defendants must be thrown out in its entirety, said the New York Court of Appeals. That's extraordinary.

New York's top court highlights the meaninglessness and menace of the term 'terrorism' | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

 

[steve_bakr]

You're joking, right?

Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece for the Guardian about how the term terrorism (and its laws) basically only apply to Muslims:

Some insightful excerpts:

Prosecutors were not content to charge Morales with murder and related crimes. Instead, they charged him with crimes of "terrorism" under an anti-terrorism law that was enacted in New York in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. When enacting the law, the legislature stated that it is designed to ensure that terrorists "are prosecuted and punished in state courts with appropriate severity". Under the law, this newly created "terrorism" crime is committed whenever one acts with the "intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population", but the law contains no definition of that term.

At trial, Morales vehemently argued that what he was accused of doing could not possibly be "terrorism", but the prosecutors insisted - and the trial court agreed - that his violence "furthered the [gang]'s objective to intimidate or coerce other Mexican-American gangs in the Bronx and, as a result of those activities, the [gang] intended to intimidate and coerce the entire Mexican-American community." The jury found him guilty on all counts, including the "terrorism" charges, and the Court of Appeals set out to determine whether the terrorism charges were validly applied to this violence........

.......But the Court of Appeals went much further. It reversed the conviction on all of the counts - including the non-terrorism counts - and ordered a new trial. That was necessary, said the court, because there are special rules that govern a trial whenever a defendant is charged with "terrorism", and these rules are so permissive, so designed to ensure conviction, that it is inherently unfair to convict someone under these rules who is not charged with terrorism.....

.....And since the term "terrorism" has no discernible meaning other than "acts of violence committed by Arabs and/or Muslims against westerners", this illustrates why New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal was exactly right when, under the headline "Liberty and Justice for non-Muslims", he wrote:t's rarely acknowledged that the [9/11] attacks have also led to what's essentially a separate justice system for Muslims. In this system, the principle of due process is twisted and selectively applied, if it is applied at all."
It's a separate system of justice so intrinsically unjust and unfair - designed to ensure that Muslims accused of "terrorism" have basically no chance of acquittal - that any trial that proceeds under its warped rules for non-terrorist defendants must be thrown out in its entirety, said the New York Court of Appeals. That's extraordinary.

New York's top court highlights the meaninglessness and menace of the term 'terrorism' | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

I understand, but Muslims do have a right to practice their religion in America.

 

[forGod1]

I wish I was Christian in one of these countries. I'd be in Heaven already. LOL

 

[Deacon Don]

I understand, but Muslims do have a right to practice their religion in America.

True, true, true as they should be allowed to do. However, due to reason and
respect for others, and particularly our laws, practitioners of that "religion of
peace" aren't allowed to practice all of the acts of their esteemed prophet
Mohammad, i.e. murdering at will, robbing people of their property, forcing
conversions, stoning, beheading, having sex with 9 year olds, etc...

From my study of that "religion of peace", Mohammad trumps anything the
Qu'ran or any of the Holy books may say.

 

[All Englands Skies]

You're joking, right?

Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece for the Guardian about how the term terrorism (and its laws) basically only apply to Muslims:

Some insightful excerpts:

Prosecutors were not content to charge Morales with murder and related crimes. Instead, they charged him with crimes of "terrorism" under an anti-terrorism law that was enacted in New York in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. When enacting the law, the legislature stated that it is designed to ensure that terrorists "are prosecuted and punished in state courts with appropriate severity". Under the law, this newly created "terrorism" crime is committed whenever one acts with the "intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population", but the law contains no definition of that term.

At trial, Morales vehemently argued that what he was accused of doing could not possibly be "terrorism", but the prosecutors insisted - and the trial court agreed - that his violence "furthered the [gang]'s objective to intimidate or coerce other Mexican-American gangs in the Bronx and, as a result of those activities, the [gang] intended to intimidate and coerce the entire Mexican-American community." The jury found him guilty on all counts, including the "terrorism" charges, and the Court of Appeals set out to determine whether the terrorism charges were validly applied to this violence........

.......But the Court of Appeals went much further. It reversed the conviction on all of the counts - including the non-terrorism counts - and ordered a new trial. That was necessary, said the court, because there are special rules that govern a trial whenever a defendant is charged with "terrorism", and these rules are so permissive, so designed to ensure conviction, that it is inherently unfair to convict someone under these rules who is not charged with terrorism.....


.....And since the term "terrorism" has no discernible meaning other than "acts of violence committed by Arabs and/or Muslims against westerners", this illustrates why New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal was exactly right when, under the headline "Liberty and Justice for non-Muslims", he wrote:

t's rarely acknowledged that the [9/11] attacks have also led to what's essentially a separate justice system for Muslims. In this system, the principle of due process is twisted and selectively applied, if it is applied at all."
​

It's a separate system of justice so intrinsically unjust and unfair - designed to ensure that Muslims accused of "terrorism" have basically no chance of acquittal - that any trial that proceeds under its warped rules for non-terrorist defendants must be thrown out in its entirety, said the New York Court of Appeals. That's extraordinary.

New York's top court highlights the meaninglessness and menace of the term 'terrorism' | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

You're the same person who attempts to make out Muslim lands are beacons of tolerance, so its a bit ironic to actually argue you're persecuted in the west.

Your examples may be true, but sorry, they pale in comparison to the way non-muslims are treated in Islamic lands.

If you cant even admit whats happening in the Islamic world, why do you expect people to listen to your own claims?

 

[Arthra]

If you look back in the history of Islam there is violence... First the oppression and violence against the early Muslims...some of whom fled for refuge in Ethiopia. There was a boycott in Mecca that lasted a few years... and an attempted assassination of the Prophet by pagans.

Eventually this led to the Muslims leaving Mecca for Medina (Yathrib)..After relocation there was an ongoing war where pagan forces sought to destroy the religion be force of arms...which failed in due time and led to the fall of Mecca itself.

Arabia itself was surrounded by Byzantine and Sassanid Empires and Arabs were exploited..

Conflict with the Byzantines and Sassanids was to be expected.. After years of wars these empires were weakened and eventually collapsed.

As to the marriage of Aisha at a early age.. there are indications that such an early age as suggested is inaccurate. There was no standard calendar used by Muslims until long after the Hijra so peoples ages were not known with any degree of accuracy.. Secondly there were Hadiths that contradict the age of Aisha. Birthdays were not part of the culture. The Hadiths themselves were supposedly passed down verbally well over a hundred years thus inaccurate in themselves to an extent...

You have the animus of centuries of the crusades and struggles between Muslims and Christians in Sicily, Spain and eastern Europe... and of course the involvement of Western powers in North Africa and the Middle East for the past century or so.. Add all of the above to the equation and you have more than enough material for prejudices and animosities to develope.

 

[BruceDLimber]

No, my defense isn't lacking, in fact it still stands.

But my statement stands even more so given that you didn't even try to refute it!


Bruce

 

[ContraMundum]

When are Muslims going to admit that their early history is largely military? Not to mention that the Crusades occured after almost 400 years of Muslim military aggression towards Christian nations. It's a wonder it so long to retaliate.

Comparing the first few hundred years of Islam to the first few hundred of Christianity is to make a comparison in stark contrasts. Jesus never had a war or an army- neither did his followers or their decendants for the first few hundred years. Mohammed made war and had an army- his followers to this very day imitate him.

Who founded the tolerant religion of peace then? Jesus or Mohammed?

An easy answer.