Islam Needs to Prove It's a Religion of Peace

[quote]Chushin wrote:
No idea about the quality of the translations, but

[i]Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them. Lo! Allah guids not these wrongdoing people. (Quran Surah 5:51)
[/quote]

I just read something about this particular verse so you’re in luck, I have an alternative view ready: http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/bigotry-toward-muslims-and-anti-arab.html
The whole piece is interesting, but because it’s long and the politics might not be to everyone’s taste, I’ll extract the relevant part:

[quote]Juan Cole wrote:
"
People often also ask me about this verse:

[5:51] O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as friends; these are friends of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them.

This is actually not a good translation of the original, which has a very specific context. In the Arabia of Muhammad’s time, it was possible for an individual to become an honorary member or “client” of a powerful tribe. But of course, if you did that you would be subordinating yourself politically to that tribe. The word used in Arabic here does not mean “friend.” It means “political patron” (wali). What the Quran is trying to do is to discourage stray Muslims from subordinating themselves to Christian or Jewish tribes that might in turn ally with pagan Mecca, or in any case might have interests at odds with those of the general Muslim community.

So the verse actually says:

[5:51] O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as tribal patrons; these are tribal patrons of one another. Those among you who become clients of these belong with them." 

[/quote]

[quote]Chushin wrote:
And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can overcome. Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all you can by armed force…(Quran; Surah 8:59-60a)

…slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare to ambush them. But if they repent and establish [Islamic] worship…their way is free. Lo! Allah is forgiving and Merciful. (Quran; Surah 9:5)[/i]
[/quote]

These two I can’t help you on specifically–at least not at the moment–but here’s another quote from the same site that might put those verses into perspective:

[quote]Juan Cole wrote:

"Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.

Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."

In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell-- quite the opposite.

When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say:

5:82. " . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: 'We are Christians.' That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud."

So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them “nearest in love” to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.

The tendency when reading the Quran is to read a word like “kafir” (infidel) as referring to all non-Muslims. But it is clear from a close study of the way the Quran uses the word that it refers to those who actively oppose and persecute Muslims. The word literally meant “ingrate” in ancient Arabic. So the polytheists (“mushrikun”) who tried to wipe out Islam were the main referents of the word “infidel.” Christians, as we see above, were mostly in a completely different category. The Christian Ethiopian monarch gave refuge to the Muslims at one point when things got hot in Mecca. The Quran does at one point speak of the “infidels” among the Jews and Christians (2:105: “those who committed kufr/infidelity from among the people of the Book.”) But this verse only proves that it did not think they were all infidels, and it is probably referring to specific Jewish and Christian groups who joined with the Meccans in trying to wipe out the early Muslim community. (The Quran calls Jews and Christians “people of the book” because they have a monotheistic scripture). "
[/quote]

I know this post is overlong already but try this on for size as well: http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/quran-quote-of-day-on-peace-muslims.html

[quote]Juan Cole wrote:

“Readers asked me about the long list of militant verses collected by polemicists against Islam. The answer is that those verses refer to the Meccan power elite in the 620s AD, who were waging a determined military, political and economic war to defeat the Muslims holed up in nearby Medina, and wipe them and the new religion out. It is frankly dishonest to take a verse about, say, the battle of Badr against the militant Meccan pagans (“unbelievers”) and imply that it refers to contemporary American Christians or American atheists for that matter. What was objectionable to the Quran in practical terms about the Meccan unbelievers was their murderousness toward Muslims, not their attachment to their star goddesses. Muslims are instructed to be nice to unbelievers who don’t share that murderousness.”
[/quote]

If you’re interested in more there’s this mainpage on peace and love in the quran: Peace And Love In Quran List Of

and this page about muslim denunciations of al qaeda and terrorism: Friedman Wrong About Muslims Again

[quote]pat wrote:
That’s right, New Zealand…You sound so American. Beautiful place New Zealand. God’s country. If I ever had to move, New Zealand is high on my list, so is Australia, not sure what’s going to become of Europe.[/quote]

NZ has some messed up weather, and the politicians here are enough to make me want to move sometimes.

No country is perfect.

[quote]pat wrote:
That’s right, New Zealand…You sound so American. Beautiful place New Zealand. God’s country. If I ever had to move, New Zealand is high on my list, so is Australia, not sure what’s going to become of Europe.[/quote]

NZ has some messed up weather, and the politicians here are enough to make me want to move sometimes.

No country is perfect.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

I guess the hope comes from the fact that pretty much everything that you list has also been done by people of other faiths (religious and non-religious.)

Really? Would you then be willing to take them one by one and give an example of each that is not so rare that it’s worth considering as something other than an anomaly?

We survived that and we will survive this.

I sure hope so.
[/quote]

Well given the age of the earth and the amount of time that humans have been around, the muslim population and how few are involved in violence then Muslim violence is so rare as to be an anomaly.

If you seriously are not aware of rape, murder, torture, subjugation of women etc that has been done by Christians, Jews, Hindu’s, Communists, Nazis, Maoists, Visgoths, Romans, Budhists or whatever then maybe you need to pick up a book sometime.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

As you may have discovered already, asking about those quotes made me quite the evil person here…
[/quote]

Me too, unfortunately.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If you seriously are not aware of rape, murder, torture, subjugation of women etc that has been done by Christians, Jews, Hindu’s, Communists, Nazis, Maoists, Visgoths, Romans, Budhists or whatever then maybe you need to pick up a book sometime.[/quote]

What, no Huns? Turks? Mongols?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

maybe you need to pick up a book sometime.

Nice.

Thanks.

I’ll be sure and keep it polite with you, too.[/quote]

Seriously if you cannot think of at least 20 examples of religions other than Islam being linked to violence just off the top of your head then either you have lived a really sheltered life or you are flat out trolling.

I don’t know which it is.

[quote]pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.
[/quote]

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?

[quote]facko wrote:
pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?[/quote]

No, they have not. Christianity has participated in crusades and such, but it was not to kill non-believers for not believing and certainly, no direct targeting of innocent civilians. Have their been Christians who have killed in the name of God, probably in very isolated cases. But it was not sanctioned, or supported and in fact condemned by Christianity a large.

Are their crazy, fucked up Christians? Sure, to many. But it is infinitesimal compared to the scale and level of violence propagated by muslims and their leadership in very recent years. Let me know when Christian acts of terror reach in the 12,000’s and then you’ll have a point.

[quote]facko wrote:
pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?[/quote]

Wait, I think the the majority of violence propagated by Christians have come from the Masons, no?

I am kidding, but I find the question ironic considering your avatar…

[quote]pat wrote:
facko wrote:
pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?

No, they have not. Christianity has participated in crusades and such, but it was not to kill non-believers for not believing and certainly, no direct targeting of innocent civilians. Have their been Christians who have killed in the name of God, probably in very isolated cases. But it was not sanctioned, or supported and in fact condemned by Christianity a large.

Are their crazy, fucked up Christians? Sure, to many. But it is infinitesimal compared to the scale and level of violence propagated by muslims and their leadership in very recent years. Let me know when Christian acts of terror reach in the 12,000’s and then you’ll have a point.[/quote]

Well historians put the number killed by the inquisition at between 30 and 300 thousand so how is that for starters?

Probably on par with the amount killed by Tamerlane.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Probably on par with the amount killed by Tamerlane.[/quote]

Which was kind of my point. Humans are pretty bloodthirsty and have a tendency to use some pretty lame excuses to go butchering people.

All of this has happened before, and will happen again.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Well historians put the number killed by the inquisition at between 30 and 300 thousand so how is that for starters?[/quote]

What is this number based on?

Edit: I ask, because I’ve seen the case made that it was more along the lines of 3,000-6,000.

Just going by wiki at the moment, the death toll seems to be much smaller.

García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000. Applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560-1700-about 2%-the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, very probably this total should be raised keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively. It is likely that the total would be between 3,000 and 5,000 executed.

Abortionists in the US have killed far more than that.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Well historians put the number killed by the inquisition at between 30 and 300 thousand so how is that for starters?

What is this number based on?

Edit: I ask, because I’ve seen the case made that it was more along the lines of 3,000-6,000.

Just going by wiki at the moment, the death toll seems to be much smaller.

García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000. Applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560-1700-about 2%-the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, very probably this total should be raised keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively. It is likely that the total would be between 3,000 and 5,000 executed.

Abortionists in the US have killed far more than that.
[/quote]

I would guess that you are looking at figures for the Spanish Inquisition which was only part of the Inquisition.

Obviously the numbers claimed vary wildly depending on who you ask not all documents survived, not all sources are reliable (protestant sources tend to boost the numbers to make Catholics look bad, Catholic sources would tend to round down wherever possible for instance.)

Also don’t forget that those that were not executed often died from the injuries sustained during the torture.