how peaceful is islam ?

[Sock puppet path]

- - erm, they spread their empire by sword, sure. Like all other emperors did, but not islam..

-erm can you be more clear as to what you are trying to say here, I thought I understood but am no longer certain.

Non-muslims had far better conditions under the first arabic empires than did non-christians (and also certain christians) under the byzantines or the romans. The coptic christians of Egypt were in fact quite happy that they were taken over by the muslims.

Sure coptic christians were happy at first until they realised that they were officially sentenced to become official second class citizens watching thier with the "Pact of Umar" since then thier numbers have dwindled to that we see today and they are still persecuted (go ahead ask me to back that up and I can start with stabbings of worshippers in 3 churches in alexandria last week, IN CHURCH)

- He said "whiped out", not "thrown out", there is a rather big difference...

They were given the option to leave, convert or die that is effectively thrown out.

 

[GeoffP]

Slight problem with this verse.

[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
[2.257] Allah is the guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light; and (as to) those who disbelieve, their guardians are Shaitans who take them out of the light into the darkness; they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide.

So this says that there is no compultion in religion, but the truth is obvious and any who reject it are in league with Satan and will burn in Hell!

Hardly a good starting point for inter faith peace.

More than that: the verse is routinely interpreted as an injunction against the refutation of force, particularly by the Wahhabis. That is (in other translations): "There is no compulsion in religion for the right way is distinct from error"

In that sense, the meaning is that islam cannot be compulsed because it is the truth - and, why, who would reject the truth? Why, obstinates and decievers, of course. :bugeye: So thus compulsion to islam isn't really compulsion in the true, unedited sense of Q 2:256 (which, notably, was "revealed" later than the majority of the Sura alluding to religious tolerance, and thus 'abrogates' - removes - them).

And in that light, the meaning of "any means necessary" (note: Diamond's old motto) becomes frighteningly poignant.

Geoff

 

[Buddha1]

to my knowledge pre muslim arabs use to kill their daughters and marry their step mothers and offer human sacrifices to idols... do u mean they were better?

Your knowledge comes from Islamic sources. Not dependable. In any case two wrongs never make a right.

Oh... so that's why we r the only religion along with judaism that have laws that condemn criminals, thieves and murderers and states strict laws upon the rulers!

That is the biggest drawback of Islam. When you get engaged in politics and running the state --- both material things, how can you be spiritual and access the god?

The problem is also with deciding what consitutes crime and what doesn't. So a woman talking to a man may be a heinous crime, while a Muslim killing a non-muslim will be a 'godly' act.

Laws and politics need to change with time. When you get them incorporated into religion and decree that religion cannot change, the laws soon become redundant and unjustified. But you can't change them.

Remember, stagnant water soon starts to rot.

u mean the religious, i'm religious and not a terrorist. conclusion, stupid theory!

How easy it is for terrorists to hide amongst peaceful Muslims like you and then strike innocent non-Muslims from there? How many non-terrorists Muslims give moral, financial and other support to the terrorists? How easily you share the same religious principles with the terrorists? Can good and evil co-exist as one?

According to my knowledge in Islam u r not to kill except in two cases, self protection and defence of the nation against an invading army... if that is terrorism, then i'm glad to be one.. only u chose to claim "Salafis r the one to interprit the Quran, no one else" (since this is a slafi interpretation) there r more than fifty sects in islam, its not up to u to say whos right whos wrong, or r u a salafi?

You will be judged by your actions not your words.

all religions have dogmas and u r entightled to submit to God (except Budhism who doesn't necesserily beleive in one) christianity doesn't tell u "u can beleive in christ or crucifixion or trinity" it says u should, judaism doesn't allow u to discuss the laws of Moses, u should submit to them similarly zoarostrianism with the gathas and hindus the vedas, if u condemn us u condemn them too..

It's true that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have several things in common. But then they are far less harmful to the world than Islam. There are important reasons for this.

Judaism does not proselytise, so there is no need for religious violence. Christianity has been open to change and has given up violence.

There can be no comparison of Islam with the other remaining religions. The others are just means to reach god, to communicate with them. They are not laws to govern people. They don't go about recruiting people by hook or crook. They are not intolerant of other ways of existing. They respect and cherish human diversity. E.g., the vedas are just a record of history, mythology and standards of high living. They are not at all binding on people. They just give them guidance if they want to seek them. They don't punish or kill people for not conforming. they don't meddle in the material life of people.

Similarly Buddhism just provides broad guidelines to people on how to conduct their lives, what is good or bad. It does not make laws for people or seeks to run their political lives. It does not provide whimsical or illogical judgements or punishments.

That is what religion is for.

In a democratic country u still r bound by judicial laws and taxes and other stuff... similar is ours, only we don't find that u may do anything even when considered harmful to society.

Yeah sure, so a person who wants to leave Islam is considered harmful to society. A person who doesn't want to fit into laws that were decreed more than 2000 years ago and does no real harm to people or society (except when you're a fundamentalist or to a god or prophet whose validity is just a matter of faith) that is a serious crime. A person who questions Islam or its oppressive laws commits a serious crime. And there is no escape.

Only when the same standards are applied by non-muslims to muslims you start crying foul. How would you like to be bombed into your mosques by christians?

to my knowledge for more than a thousand years its been the other way around the east thriving with culture and people of all sects and beleifs were welcome to join the built of civilization and science and technology and the west was sunken in poverty and civil wars and illness... until the crusades came and things started changing. your scientists were our students...

The reality is that while Christianity played havoc with the west, Islam fucked up the east. Only Christianity changed with time. Islam is still the same. It is still running its crusade. It still does not want to change.

What started in a wrong spirit cannot really do good to the world. Even though Christianity has changed a lot it cannot totally give up its past. Therefore, Christianity has become extremely weak in the west. But it has survived.

But without violence, force and brain washing Islam cannot survive one generation. It will be discarded by Muslims themselves. It is because Islam is not only discordant with peace, humanity and justice, but it also does not have any spiritual or godly value.

 

[Buddha1]

That which is afraid of questioning is farce!

 

[usp8riot]

So basically all men are good but when they read a certain book, they turn bad? :bugeye: Is that what this Muslim bashing is all about? Ignorance at it's finest. I know no muslims personally but from any book written centuries ago, you can distort the phrases, meanings, and words just like extremist Christians used to justify killing other people before in history. You will always have extremists in every religion/society that take things too far or distort/lie to do wrongdoings. With the vagueness of most religions, also people try to find loopholes in them to justify their wrong doings. Tap into your brain people and use common sense. Of course killing is wrong. And those people that kill and justify it with Islam or Christianity are doing wrong and trying to justify it with religion. Do you not think other Muslims and Christians know everyone has an individual brain and freedom to think? This is like babysitting sometimes. Jeez.

 

[I don't know]

Lol, "buddha1", if what you're saying is that Islam has never been subject to change you're talking out of the wrong end one example is the litteralist and crazy version of islam that's causing so much trouble these days is, in fact very new, just like the paralell movement that can be seen in christianity.

-erm can you be more clear as to what you are trying to say here, I thought I understood but am no longer certain.

- The empire of Omar al Khattab was expanded by the sword, but Islam was not forced by the sword.

Sure coptic christians were happy at first until they realised that they were officially sentenced to become official second class citizens

- They knew that all along, they'd in fact been so under the Byzantines as well, but they were better treated second class citizens under the muslim empires than under the Byzantine empire.

watching thier with the "Pact of Umar"

- This sentence isn't making sense to me...

since then thier numbers have dwindled to that we see today and they are still persecuted

- There was no forceful grand-scale prosecution of christians, but there was a period of a "raising of religious consciousness" under the Ayyubids and the first Mamluks because of the threats from the mongols, and more importantly, the crusaders. The Ayyubids were a few dynasties after Omar, though, and are praised by muslims today for fighting back the crusaders, not their other politics.

(go ahead ask me to back that up and I can start with stabbings of worshippers in 3 churches in alexandria last week, IN CHURCH)

- They're not persecuted on any great scale. The fact that the stabbing of three people by deranged individuals gets national (and even international) attention attests to that. There's certainly uneasiness, but using the word "persecution" is a bit alarmist.

They were given the option to leave, convert or die that is effectively thrown out.

- Mkay, we haven't gotten to that bit yet in my history class yet, so I'll take your word for it. Thanks for giving me this opportunity to refresh my memory on the other stuff, tho'

 

[(Q)]

- The empire of Omar al Khattab was expanded by the sword, but Islam was not forced by the sword.

What better way to build an empire with a sword than to have a religious ideal backing it? The creation of Islam made it possible to fuel that ideal, especially when it gave the conquered the choice to join or die.

 

[GeoffP]

- The empire of Omar al Khattab was expanded by the sword, but Islam was not forced by the sword.

Not true. Islam was forced by the sword there as in all other western territories taken by islam. Read "The Sword of the Prophet".

- They knew that all along, they'd in fact been so under the Byzantines as well, but they were better treated second class citizens under the muslim empires than under the Byzantine empire.

Do you have any proof for this? How could they be better off, when they were taxed twice as high as muslims?

- There was no forceful grand-scale prosecution of christians, but there was a period of a "raising of religious consciousness" under the Ayyubids and the first Mamluks because of the threats from the mongols, and more importantly, the crusaders.

There was no persecution I think you mean to say, but there was a "raising of religious consciousness"?? Meaning what, precisely?

- They're not persecuted on any great scale. The fact that the stabbing of three people by deranged individuals gets national (and even international) attention attests to that. There's certainly uneasiness, but using the word "persecution" is a bit alarmist.

They most assuredly are, when they are constantly being pressured to convert, when the national newspapers run them down and when converts are paraded through the streets to humiliate other Copts. Three Copts being stabbed to death by an islamic fundamentalist is not the sum toto of their oppression.

[- Mkay, we haven't gotten to that bit yet in my history class yet, so I'll take your word for it. Thanks for giving me this opportunity to refresh my memory on the other stuff, tho'

Sura 9. Ask your teacher about that.

Geoff

 

[I don't know]

What better way to build an empire with a sword than to have a religious ideal backing it? The creation of Islam made it possible to fuel that ideal,

- True

especially when it gave the conquered the choice to join or die.

- Obviously not true. Christians are a significant minority in islamic countries today, and most of the arabic christians come from families who have been christian all the way since christianity came in to existence, i.e. 600 years before Islam. Egypt remained a country with a majority of christians under all the earliest Caliphs.

How do you explain this if the muslim conquerers gave everyone the choice to convert or die?

Not true. Islam was forced by the sword there as in all other western territories taken by islam.

- Okay, then, let's take Egypt as an example then. How was Islam forced by the sword there?

Read "The Sword of the Prophet".

- My to-read list is far too long already, thank you

Do you have any proof for this?

- Sure, I have a text written by a coptic patriarch here, but the net is acting screwy.

How could they be better off, when they were taxed twice as high as muslims?

- They were treated much worse by the Byzantines because of a disagreement at a church council I forgot the name of.

edit: Chalcedon was the name. Just remembered.

There was no persecution I think you mean to say, but there was a "raising of religious consciousness"?? Meaning what, precisely?

- That's what the text on my corriculum says, I'm kind of curious of it too. I know it doesn't mean forceful conversion or any other kind of violence, because it specifically mentions some violent clashes later (between Shi'a and Sunni) and doesn't use that kind of rhetoric to describe it.

They most assuredly are, when they are constantly being pressured to convert, when the national newspapers run them down and when converts are paraded through the streets to humiliate other Copts.

- None of the copts I've talked to here have mentioned anything like that, and I've asked them specifically about stuff like this. So I'll have to ask you to give me some sources there.

Sura 9. Ask your teacher about that.

- Seems to be about the establishment of the first arabic empire, it's a long sura, though, so I didn't read it all - could you quote your point please?

 

[(Q)]

Obviously not true. Christians are a significant minority in islamic countries today, and most of the arabic christians come from families who have been christian all the way since christianity came in to existence, i.e. 600 years before Islam. Egypt remained a country with a majority of christians under all the earliest Caliphs.

How do you explain this if the muslim conquerers gave everyone the choice to convert or die?

They fought, and are still fighting today, almost 2000 years of conflict.

 

[I don't know]

No, Q, there is no war between christians and muslims here (except the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan ) - all the copts I've talked to have muslim friends, and I'm quite sure that can be said for pretty much all the copts in Egypt, if not the entire middle east.

And how could there have been a "nearly 2000 year long" conflict when Islam didn't exist even 1500 years ago?

 

[Sock puppet path]

- The empire of Omar al Khattab was expanded by the sword, but Islam was not forced by the sword.

Muslim armies took power by the sword,they were thereafter the policymakers (this is fact). Muslim rule like christian rule was at times extremely oppressive and at times enlightened. The telling factor here is the "pact of Umar" which was adopted as the standard method for treatment of non-muslims. Here is the pact of Umar now either you are honest and admit what this in fact means or I will spell it out for you (I personally don't see the Jizyah tax as a real problem)

We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.


(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

- They knew that all along, they'd in fact been so under the Byzantines as well, but they were better treated second class citizens under the muslim empires than under the Byzantine empire.

No, the problems with the Byzantine authorities were doctrinal and had most effect on the fathers of the Alexandrian see there was no standard regulation in place which relegated monphysite christians to second class status, though thier treatment varied somewhat from emperor to emperor. With a few notable exceptions treatment of monophysite christians in Egypt was tolerant since Egypt was in fact the bread basket of byzantium. If you are truly interested in the subject pick up Julian Norwich's "Byzantium" it's 3 volumes but it's worth the read.

- This sentence isn't making sense to me...

See above

- There was no forceful grand-scale prosecution of christians, but there was a period of a "raising of religious consciousness" under the Ayyubids and the first Mamluks because of the threats from the mongols, and more importantly, the crusaders. The Ayyubids were a few dynasties after Omar, though, and are praised by muslims today for fighting back the crusaders, not their other politics

.

See above, persecution of religious minorities varied but was continuous

- They're not persecuted on any great scale. The fact that the stabbing of three people by deranged individuals gets national (and even international) attention attests to that. There's certainly uneasiness, but using the word "persecution" is a bit alarmist.

This is just naive your enlightenment will be a long post which I do not have time for now.

- Mkay, we haven't gotten to that bit yet in my history class yet, so I'll take your word for it. Thanks for giving me this opportunity to refresh my memory on the other stuff, tho'

Not a problem, but you really need to go beyond school material.

 

[(Q)]

No, Q, there is no war between christians and muslims here (except the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan ) - all the copts I've talked to have muslim friends, and I'm quite sure that can be said for pretty much all the copts in Egypt, if not the entire middle east.

Yet, I can do a search and come up with dozens of sites showing the conflict between Muslims and Copts in Egypt, including sites that accuse the Egyptian government for discrimination of Christians.

And how could there have been a "nearly 2000 year long" conflict when Islam didn't exist even 1500 years ago?

You're right, sorry, my bad, I did mean during the first century that Islam was being imposed, so about 1400 years of conflict.

 

[I don't know]

Muslim armies took power by the sword,they were thereafter the policymakers (this is fact).

- That's pretty much what I was trying to say, yeah.

Muslim rule like christian rule was at times extremely oppressive and at times enlightened. The telling factor here is the "pact of Umar" which was adopted as the standard method for treatment of non-muslims. Here is the pact of Umar now either you are honest and admit what this in fact means or I will spell it out for you (I personally don't see the Jizyah tax as a real problem)

- Did a quick search and found it in the medieval sourcebook. Where it also had some commentary supporting my (not very controversial) point: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

No, the problems with the Byzantine authorities were doctrinal and had most effect on the fathers of the Alexandrian see there was no standard regulation in place which relegated monphysite christians to second class status, though thier treatment varied somewhat from emperor to emperor. With a few notable exceptions treatment of monophysite christians in Egypt was tolerant since Egypt was in fact the bread basket of byzantium. If you are truly interested in the subject pick up Julian Norwich's "Byzantium" it's 3 volumes but it's worth the read.

- I'm a philosophy major, not a history major, but I'll remember the tip. The testimony of the christian patriarch still makes it seem to me like they were treated better under the muslims. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the guy. You have any idea who it could be?

See above, persecution of religious minorities varied but was continuous

- I think this is about the time when we should define what exactly we mean by "persecution". Now, according to dictionary.com, the merriam webster's dictionary of law has this definition:

Main Entry: per·se·cu·tion
Function: noun
: punishment or harassment usually of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one's country of origin

Now, in my mind, "persecution" is a bit of a bigger word, and the fact that the non-muslims were taxed a little more doesn't seem to me as something fitting the label. But I might have a wrong view of the word, skewed by the contexts I think it's usually used (i.e. usually extreme cases)

Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't find a regime with policies like that of the first Caliphs objectionable judged by the standards of a contemporary liberal democracy (I also wrote as much in a paper recently, and my professor, who's very much a muslim, gave me a very good grade on it rather than stabbing me in righteous anger. Just saying :l), but judged in context, I think it was one of the better places to be if you didn't follow the mainstream religion.

Not a problem, but you really need to go beyond school material.

- I do, but I don't really have time for much. The university here is much more intense than back home

 

[Buffalo Roam]

And yet again muslems are killing muslem this time not over faith, but who controals the money, the combatants, Hamas vs. Fahta, but these are not the only muslem to do so how many have died around the world because they were of the wrong sect and declaired apostate by another Islamic sect, these disagreements inside Islam kill more Muslem today than any other political cause or religeon.

 

[Sock puppet path]

- - Did a quick search and found it in the medieval sourcebook. Where it also had some commentary supporting my (not very controversial) point: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html.

The claim of universal islamic tolerance is a myth. Read that document again and try and see it in real world terms, again the tax is the least of it.

This one for example.

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims

Some examples of it's continued practice.

From Egypt

In early December, 2005, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak issued a presidential decree easing the severe restrictions on repairing and rebuilding churches in Egypt. [1] In an editorial in the Coptic Internet weekly Watani, editor Youssef Sidhom stated that the decree would deliberately be implemented in a way that would render it meaningless, and cited a letter by an Egyptian governor substantiating this claim. more

From Turkey

Closure of seminaries
Seminaries for the Armenian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Church have been closed. Seminaries and theological training schools for the Syrian Orthodox and other denominations such as the Protestants are prohibited.

The Greek Orthodox Seminary, Halki Theological School, was closed in 1971 by the Turkish Government. Halki’s facilities were available not only to Greek Orthodox clergy but also to priests and bishops from other Orthodox churches, making it an international centre for religious studies. The closure poses a serious threat to the supply of clergy for the Greek Orthodox community in Turkey. There are now only around 26 priests, half of whom are over 60.

In another similar situation, the Holy Cross High School, originally opened to train Armenian clergy, has since 1985 been refused by the Government to approve elections to the school board. Only a few board members are still alive with no Government permission to elect new administrators to keep it in operation. more

or

Turkish security police ordered a Protestant Christian congregation meeting for 40 years in the southeastern port city of Iskenderun to close its doors in mid June, declaring the church had "no legal basis" and that its activities were harmful to society. more

This is the result of a quick search the more you dig the more you find compare this with mosques being built in the west.

- I'm a philosophy major, not a history major, but I'll remember the tip. The testimony of the christian patriarch still makes it seem to me like they were treated better under the muslims. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the guy. You have any idea who it could be?

Here some excerpts from Copts.net what the egyptian copts themselves have to say

John of Nikiu in his chronicles indicates that Amer ibin Alass, after the conquest of Egypt, " increased the taxes to the extent of 22 batr of gold till all the people hid themselves owing to the greatness of the tribulation, and could not find the wherewithal to pay."

The Umayyad Caliph Suliman ibin abed Almalek reflected this policy, in writing his appointed ruler of Egypt " to milk the camel until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood". Though some of the Arab rulers were moderate, most were oppressive, cruel and committed a lot of atrocities against the Coptic population. The ultimate policy of the Muslim Arab rulers changed gradually from maximum financial gain to Isalmization either through incentives of reduced taxation, or by outright violence and force. Arab and Turkic rulers from different dynasties continued to levy heavy taxation to impoverish the Copts, instituted policies to eradicate the Coptic culture, language, leadership, and initiated violence and pogroms against the Coptic population.

The Arab's oppression led the Copts to several rebellions, but these rebellions failed to break the yoke of oppression or achieve independence. The Copts in the eastern Delta fought against the Ommayyds oppression in 725 A.D. A large-scale Coptic revolt against the Abbasids took place circa 815 A.D. El Maamoun, the Abbasid Caliph, had to bring in a large army with elephants to conquer the Copts revolution of 815 A.D. Even as late as 1176 A.D. the Copts of the city of Koptos revolted against the oppression of the Turkic rulers. The policy of heavy taxation, pillage, and violence was also accompanied by forced migration of Copts to other parts of the Islamic Empire, and settlement of Muslim Arabs into Egypt. As a result, many of the Copts were forced into Islam to escape the continued oppression and heavy taxation. The forced Isalmization policy was followed by most of the Arab rulers, and later on also by most of the Mamluks and Turkic rulers. Gradually, the population of Muslims increased and the Copts decreased. The population of the Copts decreased from 9 million at the time of the Arabs conquest 641 A. D. approximately 700,000 at the early 1900's

You say they didn't force islam upon the copts by the sword but they did it through oppression and at times violence.
You can go read more here

- I think this is about the time when we should define what exactly we mean by "persecution". Now, according to dictionary.com, the merriam webster's dictionary of law has this definition:

Main Entry: per·se·cu·tion
Function: noun
: punishment or harassment usually of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one's country of origin

Now, in my mind, "persecution" is a bit of a bigger word, and the fact that the non-muslims were taxed a little more doesn't seem to me as something fitting the label. But I might have a wrong view of the word, skewed by the contexts I think it's usually used (i.e. usually extreme cases)

Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't find a regime with policies like that of the first Caliphs objectionable judged by the standards of a contemporary liberal democracy (I also wrote as much in a paper recently, and my professor, who's very much a muslim, gave me a very good grade on it rather than stabbing me in righteous anger. Just saying :l), but judged in context, I think it was one of the better places to be if you didn't follow the mainstream religion.

Do you possibly think your muslim professor may see islamic history through rose coloured glasses? The stabbing of 3 worshippers is the tip of the iceberg just because western media has little interest in the plight of copts in Egypt doesn't mean all is well. Look this is from 1998.

In the same week as 60 tourists were killed in Luxor 5 christians in El-Minyah province had thier throats cut. The atrocity followed the killing of 40 christians in the same province during 6-7 september.
The september killings included six christians killed just outside St George's church in the village of Arroda, and nine young people killed during sunday school. In another part of town three men from the same extended family were killed, the heads of two of them smashed to pieces with a spade to prevent relatives from distinguishing between the bodies.

And in the town of Mallawi, two men and a 15 year old boy were killed, thier bodies left on display on the roadside.

more



You can go and read through other incidents here or here


More later

 

[dattaswami]

Islam turns good men bad.Islam thrives on deception and craves death and destruction.It’s time you discovered why it’s not possible to be a good Muslim and a peaceful person. Yes it’s true, all Muslims aren’t terrorists—only the good ones are.the terrorists haven’t corrupted their religion ; Islam has corrupted them.There is no choice in Islam. There are no freedoms. The doctrine is named submission. The Qur’an orders Muslims to submit and obey. Where there is no choice, there is no freedom. Where there is no freedom there is no democracy. Therefore, where there is Islam there will be no democracy. Muslims live in social, economic, intellectual, and religious poverty. All Islam has ever been able to breed is tyranny and terror.no Islamic society has ever been able to create a productive economy. For its first 1300 years, Islam survived on the taxes and plunder confiscated from conquered peoples. In the last 100 years it has nourished itself on oil. No oil, no Islam. Tyranny and terror are expensive.unable to give his followers a reason to live, Muhammad gave them a reason to die. Muhammad ordered his Jihadists to scream “Allah is Greatest” before every one of the 75 terrorist raids he led during the first 10 years of the Islamic Era. And Allah, Muhammad’s god, confirmed the madness in each of the Qur’an’s Medina surahs. Despite what you have said, Islam is not a peaceful religion .
http://www.nomullas.net/main.html

Q’ran says that a Muslim should protect even the enemy belonging to other religion. It says that a Muslim can speak about the preaching of Allah to the enemy and then leave the enemy in protected place. It never says that the religion should be spread by violence. It speaks about the war for justice, which is not the war for propagation of religion. For that matter, Gita arose only from the state of war, which was fought for establishing justice. Even Bible says that the rigid fools who do not realize should be thrown to the liquid fire, which is violence. Therefore, violence is not wrong. But the cause of violence should be perfectly justified. When Mohammad came, there were three hundred religions, which were quarelling among themselves with lot of violence. He tried His best by preaching the concept of one God. There was no alternative way to subside the violence between them.

Actually after Jesus, the concept of human incarnation was fully realized but this concept was exploited by cheaters. Every fellow became a prophet and declared himself as the human incarnation. The followers started preaching that particular form is only the one God. You can imagine easily the situation at the time. When violence is justified, it is called as punishment given by God. If the violence is not justified, it becomes Chaos due to egoism of a demon, which can be subsided only by divine punishment. Actually at the end, Hinduism speaks about the incarnation of Kalki and Christianity speaks about the final punishment given by God. Both these situations are of terrible violence only.

The last sort of God is only punishment, which can alone bring peace at least temporally for some time when the world is filled with brutal conservative fools, who are the wild beasts in the human form. The Lord says in Bible “Revenge is mine” which means the Lord punishes the unjust people. The Lord said in Gita that He will destroy the evil person (Vinasaya cha….). God is double-edged knife. Not only He protects the justice but also He punishes the injustice. A rich weak human being may protect the justice but may not be able to punish the injustice. A poor strong fellow may punish the injustice but not protect the justice by giving compensation. Thus, the human beings have limitations but the Lord is strong as well as rich and therefore is capable in both sides.

This is the meaning when Jesus mentioned about the divine kingdom on the earth. He means that one may escape the king on this earth but can never escape God. When you are affected by injustice, pray for compensation only (“Ask that shall be given”-Bible) and not for the punishment of enemy. You will be compensated. When you do not pray for the punishment of enemy, you will see the punishment of your enemy soon from God. You may react to your enemy with equal or double force. But God will react with million times of force. Draupadi was pestering Krishna for the destruction of her enemies. The Lord fulfilled her wish but all her sons were killed by enemies and Lord did not protect them. Some times God punishes your enemy through your self. Arjuna killed the enemies, forced by the Lord. But Arjuna was not having the intention to kill the enemies and was against the war. Since he was forced by the Lord, he fought the war for justice.

When Muslims followed Mohammad in His war for unifying the religions, it was justified because there was clear divine instruction. Since Mohammad was the last divine preacher, now the war for justice need not be carried on because in the absence of divine preacher there is every possibility of misunderstanding of every situation as requirement for war of justice. Therefore, the instruction of Mohammad was limited to that time because He was capable of deciding the correct requirement for war for justice. Mohammad removed the concept of human incarnation because the effects of exploitation were severe in that time. Muslims should realize that human incarnation means that God entered in the human body and not that God modified as human body. Mohammad objected only modification of God in to human body. This is not condemning the concept of human incarnation. God only enters the human body and Mohammad himself was the human incarnation because God entered in to Mohammad and gave Q’ran. Gita clearly says that God entered the human body (Manusheem Tanu Asritam..) and that God is not modified in to human body(Avyaktam Vyakti Mapannam…). Bible also says that God is in flesh and does not say that God has become flesh. Thus, there is no difference between three religions.

At Thy Lotus Feet His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

 

[DiamondHearts]

i dont know, you seem like a person capable of understanding thanks for your input.

Allah swt bless you and your family.

I'm glad that atleast someone is able to argue these ridiculously flase points presented by these two posters.

Q and sockpuppetpath basically seem to believe that Muslims can never do good, that Muslims are evil, and any conflict involving Muslims must eb the fault of Muslims.

With this negative view on Islam baised completely on fallacies and open lies, what more is to be expected to poison whatever intellectual conversation in this forum.

Not only do these two and their friends constantly encourage hatred of Muslims and lie to further their points, but they also spew hate on anyone might agree with Muslims on a particular issue.

Even when I present a point, they feel the need to add commentary to prove others that I cannot honesty say something nice.

"Those who speak truth, their words are better than their silence, yet those who spread falsehood, their silence is better than their words." -Prophet Muhammad (s)

Peace.

 

[J77]

I live in a neighbourhood which has a large Islamic population.

Very nice community atmosphere - people stopping to chat and kids playing in the street

Also, the shops, especially the butcher's, are top notch

 

[Sock puppet path]

i dont know, you seem like a person capable of understanding thanks for your input.

Allah swt bless you and your family.

I'm glad that atleast someone is able to argue these ridiculously flase points presented by these two posters.

Q and sockpuppetpath basically seem to believe that Muslims can never do good, that Muslims are evil,

Wrong where am I supposed to have said this? Show me. I am simply explaining that evolutions propaganda post is just that. propaganda Things were not always rosy under islamic rule.

and any conflict involving Muslims must eb the fault of Muslims.

I have never claimed this while you time and again blame every ill in the muslim world on the west...hypocrite.

With this negative view on Islam baised completely on fallacies and open lies, what more is to be expected to poison whatever intellectual conversation in this forum.

Said it before and I'll say it again anything that I post I can back up with fact otherwise I won't post it.

Not only do these two and their friends constantly encourage hatred of Muslims and lie to further their points, but they also spew hate on anyone might agree with Muslims on a particular issue.

Yeah right like you peddling hatred for gays, apostates, jews, westerners..etc etc. Hell you even said you would turn your own son over to islamic authorities for execution if he did something offensive against islam.

Even when I present a point, they feel the need to add commentary to prove others that I cannot honesty say something nice.

You refuse to even answer simple questions asked you time and again.

"Those who speak truth, their words are better than their silence, yet those who spread falsehood, their silence is better than their words." -Prophet Muhammad (s)

In that case you better shut up

Peace.

Hypocrite