I hope its all right with you all that I bring up religion's relationship to liberty on this forum. Didn't Islam originally spread by conquest (with no purported miraculous confirmation of its truth)? Wouldn't that mean that consistent Muslims would support such a method of spreading their faith? Doesn't the Islamic scripture approve of things like this?
If, on the other hand, Islam is consistent with liberty; why didn't religious freedom sprout in Islamic nations?
Because when it comes to politics, religion is just a font of politics.
I'm no expert on Islam, but from what I understand, it doesn't ban other religions or state that any islamic nation must be islamic-only. It tends to be political institutions that create and enforce those kinds of rules.
Individualist:Didn't Islam originally spread by conquest (with no purported miraculous confirmation of its truth)?
I don't believe this is correct. Or at least, no more so than Christianity did.
Individualist:Wouldn't that mean that consistent Muslims would support such a method of spreading their faith?
I believe the Islamic faith revolves first around the Koran, and second around historical events (hadiths and such).
Individualist:If, on the other hand, Islam is consistent with liberty; why didn't religious freedom sprout in Islamic nations?
All religions are to some degree or another exclusive. But muslims, christians and jews lived among one another, rarely perfectly, but nonetheless they did live among one another for periods in the middle east. Even now, there is a lot more religious tolerance than there has been in the past.
What is mostly anti-western imperialism, is characterized as radical islam vs. christianity.
The first dynasty ummayad was spread for monetary purposes and plunder. But is generally considered less religious than the next dynasty called Abassid which was very strict.
Neither dynasty was any good.
If, on the other hand, Islam is consistent with liberty;
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
If we had true liberty, then religious people would be able to live peacefully along side one another without incident. Religion should be a matter of choice among individuals without repercusions for differing religious beliefs or non-belief. If a religion is incompatible with liberty, and I'm sure there are probably some that are, then society would reject them assuming their commitment to liberty is sufficient.
We don't really have true liberty though at this moment. Religion has been a major political player in government intervention. Some of the most blood thirsty periods in history have been religiously motivated. Islam is just one of many religions that have used non-libertarian methods to expand their influence. Any religious movement that uses government, or more specifically force or coercion, is incompatible with liberty as long as they follow that policy.
The question you ask is whether Islam is consistent with liberty. That of course covers a ton of people and several different variations of beliefs. Islam doesn't have a Pope or other othodox hierarchy, and leaves a lot to intepretation by scholars. That means the religion changes by location and by time period.
Originally, Islam was taught to free the masses from the oppression of the priciple powers of that time. As the movement grew it transformed beyond a liberating movement to a movement where military conquest was justified (right or wrong). It was that period and the decisions made at that time that has cause great confusion in the interpretation of what is or is not just.
There was much more religious freedom under Islam than the Roman Catholic Church, so I don't quite understand the comment. Islam was much more tolerant of religious and scientific freedom.
As for military conquest of religions, this is not at all unique. Islam was at war in the time of Muhammad. Judaism was at war in the time of Moses; the Ark of the Covenant was said to be a major weapon. Christianity would eventually turn to conquest once under Roman influence, and proved no less brutal than any other relgion before it. The wars between Catholics and Protestants tore Europe apart several times over. Is all of this consistent with liberty? No, it's not. As western governments became more secular there has been more tolerance to freedom of religion than under Catholic or Protestant rule. A lot of blood was shed to reach the current state we experience now where even the most radical religions may practice their faith, but we are still not completely free from religious influence in government intervention.
Individualist: Doesn't the Islamic scripture approve of things like this?
Individualist:why didn't religious freedom sprout in Islamic nations?
Snowflake:Because the governments aren't about religion, they are about power. The use religion like propaganda.
There is a lot of truth in this. After an extended period of time, national and political norms become a form of religion. They become accepted as the correct and social way of doing things, whether their initial premises pass muster matter not, because they are based on repetition and belief, not reason.
Caveat, that's not to slight religion as being anti-reason, but it is one thing to believe in something divine, and another thing to believe in something that is man made and makes no claim to being divine. If we're going to deify anyone, it makes more sense (to me at least) to deify a god, not a man or political movement.
Religion is only an expression of ignorance, and mostly reflects the ignorance and barbarism of the society whete it is practiced. The arabs were basically barbarians that unlike other people in the region, had no material wealth, so Islam was used as an excuse to plunder the riches of civilization. To this day, Islam remains one of the worst kinds of organized religions, and most cults considered by the mainstream to be dangerous have a hard time keeping up.
Although he is not a libertarian, I recommend Pat Condell on the subject, since he often says where Islam is violating his freedoms, and the freedoms of others.
Individualist: I hope its all right with you all that I bring up religion's relationship to liberty on this forum. Didn't Islam originally spread by conquest (with no purported miraculous confirmation of its truth)? Wouldn't that mean that consistent Muslims would support such a method of spreading their faith? Doesn't the Islamic scripture approve of things like this? If, on the other hand, Islam is consistent with liberty; why didn't religious freedom sprout in Islamic nations?
Islamic nations, historically speaking, have been the most peaceful, innovative, and prosperous nations, until relatively recently. The so-called 'radical Muslims' are nothing more than radical socialists who seek complete control over every dimension of life. But this is not only a Muslim phenomena; how free are we in the United States, or in the UK, or in Communist China?
The tenants of Islam are the same tenants seen in Judeo-Christianity; both have some elements of brutality (breaking sabbath, for example, means death), but the crux of all monotheistic faiths (I include Buddhism in this category) is peace and devotion. The Islamic scripture is 99.9% about peace, love, and brotherhood. Furthermore, who would deny that Christians forcefully spread their faith throughout the entire world?
The problem arises when people confuse the actual teachings of religion with the actions of overly ambitious men, who quote from such texts for political expedience and power. Evil people will quote from religious texts, political philosophers, poets, economists, whatever, in order to achieve their goal (power). Blaming religion for evil is like blaming guns for murder.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I'm no expert pf the Koran nor Islam. Do they require that everyone be or become Muslim? Perhaps a better question would, how is Islam inconsistent with libertarianism?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: I'm no expert pf the Koran nor Islam. Do they require that everyone be or become Muslim? Perhaps a better question would, how is Islam inconsistent with libertarianism?
Islam just means people of peace who submit themselves to Allah (GOD, the same GOD of the Jews and Christians). This does not mean that you submit yourself to men who claim some kind of divine authority (in fact the opposite is true), nor does it mean that you should kill non believers (they are to be judged in the end of days). Furthermore, Islam includes Jews and Christians; the organization and division of sects is more political than religious. Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, ect, are all prophets of Islam.
Jews, for example, are allowed to pray in Mosques, and Muslims can pray in Jewish Temples (or at least they could). Now, there is an intellectual debate amongst Muslims and Christians over Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus did die for the sins of man, but that he was a man himself, and not GOD. While Christians believe that Jesus was GOD on earth. But the debate is an intellectual one, meaning the scholars don't kill each other.
I don't mean to underplay the differences between Christianity and Islam, there are real differences. Christians believe that the only way you reach heaven is through faith and faith alone, while Muslims believe you get to heaven through faith and good deeds. The notion of hell is different as well. Muslims don't believe that souls are trapped in hell forever (though some are). There are more similarities though, the main connection is denouncing Satan.
One of the things you'll see most is that they think that they (OMG! 5 words that look roughly the same in a row!) can defend their religion with violence against people who dare criticize it, this is one of the biggest dangers in Sweden at the moment, but as Islam gets more popular, we might see them forcing their culture and religion on everyone else, it has already started happening a bit, and the Swedish public service television told the Swedish kids about Ramadan (and even celebrated it) during Bolibompa (the most popular children's show in Sweden), even though there are very few muslims in Sweden at the moment.
Esuric: Daniel: I'm no expert pf the Koran nor Islam. Do they require that everyone be or become Muslim? Perhaps a better question would, how is Islam inconsistent with libertarianism? Islam just means people of peace who submit themselves to Allah (GOD, the same GOD of the Jews and Christians). This does not mean that you submit yourself to men who claim some kind of divine authority (in fact the opposite is true), nor does it mean that you should kill non believers (they are to be judged in the end of days). Furthermore, Islam includes Jews and Christians; the organization and division of sects is more political than religious. Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, ect, are all prophets of Islam. Jews, for example, are allowed to pray in Mosques, and Muslims can pray in Jewish Temples (or at least they could). Now, there is an intellectual debate amongst Muslims and Christians over Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus did die for the sins of man, but that he was a man himself, and not GOD. While Christians believe that Jesus was GOD on earth. But the debate is an intellectual one, meaning the scholars don't kill each other.
There is tolerance of other religions in Islam, but there is no tolerance for a Muslim who converts to Christianity, Judaism or other religion. Now how they deal with this differs in different countries.
I'd also say that American's exposure of Muslims is very limited to some of the most extreme schools (compounded by the media, which reports the most sensational aspects). I might even go as far to say that American Muslims may have more extreme views than their Middle Eastern counterparts, but are limited in acting out these beliefs due to the secular government. That's not to say that all American Muslims are this way, it's just a generalization based on the schools that have more prominence in the country. But hey, this isn't a new thing to America. Puritans came to America and enacted some of the most barbaristic policies that even made some of the more extreme churches in England indignant.
Oh, and another major difference is that Christians don't believe you have a right to kill ever, no matter what. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that you have the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property. This is one reason why people tend to see Christianity as the more peaceful religion. Early Christians chose torture over denying their faith.
K.C. Farmer:I'd also say that American's exposure of Muslims is very limited to some of the most extreme schools (compounded by the media, which reports the most sensational aspects). I might even go as far to say that American Muslims may have more extreme views than their Middle Eastern counterparts, but are limited in acting out these beliefs due to the secular government. That's not to say that all American Muslims are this way, it's just a generalization based on the schools that have more prominence in the country. But hey, this isn't a new thing to America. Puritans came to America and enacted some of the most barbaristic policies that even made some of the more extreme churches in England indignant.
That's like the media blaming 'conservatism' for atrocities. The left tries to link conservatism to lunatics, the same way the right tries to link Islam to lunatics. People do crazy shit, for many different reasons. The Muslims in the middle east tend to be more violent, but can you really blame them? Unfortunately, the atrocities against Muslims in the middle east has allowed for some extremely brutal dictators to emerge (the same way Hitler emerged in Germany after the abuse it took after WW1). A Muslim in Montenegro, for example, acts differently than a Muslim in the Gaza Strip. There is no connection between Islam (the faith) and aggression or insanity.
The first suicide bombers were Jewish, I wonder why? People will only accept oppression for so long.
Esuric:Oh, and another major difference is that Christians don't believe you have a right to kill ever, no matter what. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that you have the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property. This is one reason why people tend to see Christianity as the more peaceful religion. Early Christians chose torture over denying their faith.
Oh, but it didn't take long before Christians stopped turning the other cheek and went for the throat. This change occurred around the time Constantine converted and forced the religion to have one standard - a standard that also merged the ancient Roman religion with Christianity. It's at this moment where Christianity became the State, and went with the policy of assimilation, expulsion or extermination (as most states often do). Christians turned against Christians as the Heresy Hunters were sent out to determine which Christians or ideas were good and which were evil. They even hunted down philosophers, mathematicians and early scientists as heretics. The decisions of some of these early orthodox church fathers simply defy reason. One example is that one claimed because there are four directions on the compass and four winds, there are four and only four true gospels.
Arvin: One of the things you'll see most is that they think that they (OMG! 5 words that look roughly the same in a row!) can defend their religion with violence against people who dare criticize it,
One of the things you'll see most is that they think that they (OMG! 5 words that look roughly the same in a row!) can defend their religion with violence against people who dare criticize it,
Is that what it says in the Koran?
I think the following lecture given by Sean Gabb of the libertarian alliance may be most instructive to the ongoing debate:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4288936354899104985&ei=fpf0SvWcA4rV-Qab1aGgDA&q=sean+gabb+islam&hl=en&client=firefox-a#
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
K.C. Farmer: There is tolerance of other religions in Islam, but there is no tolerance for a Muslim who converts to Christianity, Judaism or other religion. Now how they deal with this differs in different countries.
There is supposed to be tolerance for anyone who converts out of Islam as you'll see
[18:29] Proclaim: "This is the truth from your Lord," then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.......-
[5:54] O you who believe, if you revert from your religion, then GOD will substitute in your place people whom He loves and who love Him. They will be kind with the believers, stern with the disbelievers, and will strive in the cause of GOD without fear of any blame. Such is GOD's blessing; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. GOD is Bounteous, Omniscient.
but all "muslim" governments and tribesmen that get involved in stoning people to death and other nonsense don't even bother practicing what is preached in Quran.
The Quran itself states They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords, instead of GOD. [9:31]
Most all of the confusion and "contradictions" take place between what is in the Quran or what is in hadith. That is why some reject Hadith- which is seen to be human words and easy to tamper with and not "God's word" as Quran is. Any "contradictions" found in the Quran usually comes from a very very poor understanding of the text and the context in which its written.
I recommend this site www.submission.org- it takes to task many of the most hard hitting questions about Islam and why some people can't wrap their minds around how it could possibly be considered peaceful when there are so many "Muslims" out there that seem bloodthirsty. Quran also places a heavy emphasis on God disliking hypocrites- those who call themselves Muslim but engage in evil- they are seen as some of the worst of people- and there's plenty of them on this earth.
Esuric:The Muslims in the middle east tend to be more violent, but can you really blame them?
I don' t condone violence. Self defense is one thing, but suicide bombing is not self defense by definition.
How people choose to practice their faith is a matter of personal choice. The violence in the middle east is due to a sense of hopelessness more than religious ideology. The middle east is also the perfect example of how government interventionism can go horribly wrong - and there's a whole UN worth of government intervention going on in the middle east. That said, we all have a choice as to how we counter the State. Violence is the least productive way.
K.C. Farmer: I don' t condone violence. Self defense is one thing, but suicide bombing is not self defense by definition. How people choose to practice their faith is a matter of personal choice. The violence in the middle east is due to a sense of hopelessness more than religious ideology. The middle east is also the perfect example of how government interventionism can go horribly wrong - and there's a whole UN worth of government intervention going on in the middle east. That said, we all have a choice as to how we counter the State. Violence is the least productive way.
I entirely agree with this statement. All I'm saying is that the violence in the middle east is no accident; Muslims aren't born insane. The same way that Jewish suicide bombers were not born insane (having half of your family burned alive in ovens tends to make people do some crazy shit).
auctionguy10: K.C. Farmer: There is tolerance of other religions in Islam, but there is no tolerance for a Muslim who converts to Christianity, Judaism or other religion. Now how they deal with this differs in different countries. There is supposed to be tolerance for anyone who converts out of Islam as you'll see [18:29] Proclaim: "This is the truth from your Lord," then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.......- [5:54] O you who believe, if you revert from your religion, then GOD will substitute in your place people whom He loves and who love Him. They will be kind with the believers, stern with the disbelievers, and will strive in the cause of GOD without fear of any blame. Such is GOD's blessing; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. GOD is Bounteous, Omniscient. but all "muslim" governments and tribesmen that get involved in stoning people to death and other nonsense don't even bother practicing what is preached in Quran. The Quran itself states They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords, instead of GOD. [9:31] Most all of the confusion and "contradictions" take place between what is in the Quran or what is in hadith. That is why some reject Hadith- which is seen to be human words and easy to tamper with and not "God's word" as Quran is. Any "contradictions" found in the Quran usually comes from a very very poor understanding of the text and the context in which its written. I recommend this site www.submission.org- it takes to task many of the most hard hitting questions about Islam and why some people can't wrap their minds around how it could possibly be considered peaceful when there are so many "Muslims" out there that seem bloodthirsty. Quran also places a heavy emphasis on God disliking hypocrites- those who call themselves Muslim but engage in evil- they are seen as some of the worst of people- and there's plenty of them on this earth.
It's also interesting how Jesus Christ had only one commandment: to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Guess Christians are just as bad as Muslims at following simple directions, or their leadership preaches what happens to be convenient at the time.
As with all religions, the muslims have problems in their holy book. IIRC, it calls for a tax called the jizya on unbelievers, to be paid to the believers. Muhammed also married a very young little girl called Aisha, who was 6 or 7. We shall not get into the various wars Muhammed's merry band of followers got into. In this respect it's more or less like Christianity or Judaism.
However, as has been noted, Islamic society was very advanced until comparatively recently in terms of wealth and knowledge. I cannot say how free or not they were.
Zach_the_Lizard: As with all religions, the muslims have problems in their holy book. IIRC, it calls for a tax called the jizya on unbelievers, to be paid to the believers.
As with all religions, the muslims have problems in their holy book. IIRC, it calls for a tax called the jizya on unbelievers, to be paid to the believers.
The jizya "tax" is the same as the "alms" tax that is placed on regular Muslims by an Islamic state. Although we obviously know things don't go that way when it comes to how the "State" deals with things- the tax is not intended as a transfer of wealth from unbelievers to believers- but a tax so that protection can be provided to unbelievers against harm and theft as well as to provide them welfare by the Islamic state if they are in need. Non-muslims who are poor are not taxed.
Zach_the_Lizard: Muhammed also married a very young little girl called Aisha, who was 6 or 7.
Well this isn't in the Quran- although it is popular in hadith. You ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO differentiate Quran and hadith or things make no sense. In the Quran you cannot marry a woman so young. But also- marriage doesn't mean sex. The reason a muslim may have more than one wife for example is if he wishes to protect a poor woman- he would marry her so that she can live in her house.(Although if any women disagree to this, he is not allowed to)
Esuric: The Islamic scripture is 99.9% about peace, love, and brotherhood.
That statement is something I would challenge. In terms of scripture, looking at the fundamentals such as the Qur'an and Hadith, one can see that verses and accounts describing, glorifying and commanding the violent subjugation of non-believers are overflowing in the texts. The following is a response I wrote to a person who was enquiring about Islam with similar misconceptions (that the fundamental tenants of Islam are based on peace):
I would suggest further research into the mechanics of understanding the Qur'an. The view you have purported is very naive in the context of abrogation (al-naskh wa al-mansukh) and the actual words and deeds of Mohammed.
The Qur'an cannot merely be read at face value without its companions the Hadith (oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad) and the Sira (traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad). The Qur'an was not compiled chronologically and it has been left to scholars to interpret a timeline of the verses based on information from, among others but mostly, the Hadith and the Sira.
Once you have this in mind you would understand that Muhammad issued platitudes towards other monotheistic religions ("the people of the book") in a time when Islam was still a new movement in Mecca and still relatively weak as a whole.
However, once Muhammad and his follows attained military fortitude following their migration to Medina all of Muhammad's previous platitudes towards "the people of the book" (and unbelievers as a whole) are abrogated by what he proclaimed in this later Medinan period.
The verse of abrogation ("al-naskh wa al-mansukh"):
"Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?" -(2:106)
So, an example of abrogation is the classic "no compulsion in religion" verse Islamic apologists use all the time:
"There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut {idolatry} and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break." -(2:256)
All very nice, unfortunately this verse was "revealed" when the Muslims were still weak, having fled Mecca for Medina. It has since been abrogated (made null and void) since what Muhammad "revealed" after this period completely contradicts it.
For example, the classic "Verse of the Sword":
"Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free." -(9:5)
So, from the Medinan period it was commanded that Muslims were to go out through out the world and conquer all non-Muslim lands (jihad), incorporate them into Dar al-Islam (the land of Islam) and either convert the infidels or subjugate them as dhimmi people under Islamic control (Sharia) where they would live at the mercy of their Islamic overlords all the while paying the jizya (tribute tax) for the luxury of remaining non-Muslim and alive.
Here is the evidence, judge for yourself:
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." -(8:39)
"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -(9:29)
"It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it)." -(9:33)
What's that about Islam and terrorism having nothing to do with each other? Well...
"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority." -(3:151)
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" -(8:12)
And, in case you're wondering, yes, jihad and the struggle for Islamic dominance over the infidels is mandatory for Muslims in some form or another. (Allah even offers extra status and extra rewards to those who do):
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." -(2:216)
"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…" -(4:76)
"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" -(4:95)
Finally, the Qur'an is very succinct in its view of non-Muslims. They are the scorn of Allah, damned to burn in hell and it is the duty of Muslims to either convert them or to subjugate them as dhimmis. If they do not do this they are, simply, to be killed.
"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures." - (98:6)
"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" - (9:30)
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know" -(8:60)
"Strive hard (Jihad) against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed." -(66:9)
I would quote more but there really is no point. The Qu'ran is overflowing with hatred for all things non-Islamic. Hell, some of Muhammad's own final words were: "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians." -(Bukhari 8:427)
Finally, I would just like to point out that all of my direct quotation has come from the Qur'an (barring the final words of Muhammad which came from the Hadith).
Great post Hard Rain. Today it is polite to say that all religions are equivalent and basicaly the same, but they are not. Despite all faith fullfilling the same basic need, different creeds have different things to say, the same way different foods taste differently and are composed of different nuttrients albeit they are all eaten to appease hunger.I would like to highlight this passage which you quote:"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -(9:29)
It is obvious from it that the basic underlying purpose of the Jizya is symbolic - it is a way for non-Moslems to acknowledge their subjugation.
auctionguy10:But also- marriage doesn't mean sex. The reason a muslim may have more than one wife for example is if he wishes to protect a poor woman- he would marry her so that she can live in her house.(Although if any women disagree to this, he is not allowed to)
Yes, it is not necessary to consummate a marriage immediately. However, this marriage was consummated when Aisha was 9. Muhammad had a bunch of wives, more than is allowed to any other muslim. He had 13 wives. As Hard Rain has done, I could quote 16 bajillion cases of violence in the Quran itself, if you don't feel inclined to accept craziness from the hadith. Guess he wouldn't be a pedophile then, just a crazed mass murderer.
Islam expansion was mostly by war and conquest since the very beginning, and that was not the case of early christianity
Vitor: Islam expansion was mostly by war and conquest since the very beginning, and that was not the case of early christianity
Yes, indeed, this is an important fact. The sand barbarians basically went out to plunder, rape and pillage the more civilized peoples in the area in the name of Allah, and so their religion reflects that.
Hard Rain: Esuric: The Islamic scripture is 99.9% about peace, love, and brotherhood. That statement is something I would challenge. In terms of scripture, looking at the fundamentals such as the Qur'an and Hadith, one can see that verses and accounts describing, glorifying and commanding the violent subjugation of non-believers are overflowing in the texts. The following is a response I wrote to a person who was enquiring about Islam with similar misconceptions (that the fundamental tenants of Islam are based on peace): I would suggest further research into the mechanics of understanding the Qur'an. The view you have purported is very naive in the context of abrogation (al-naskh wa al-mansukh) and the actual words and deeds of Mohammed. The Qur'an cannot merely be read at face value without its companions the Hadith (oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad) and the Sira (traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad). The Qur'an was not compiled chronologically and it has been left to scholars to interpret a timeline of the verses based on information from, among others but mostly, the Hadith and the Sira.
The Quran has to be read at face value. Most hadith(like the ones by Bukhari) were recorded well 200 years after Muhammad's death and many hadith do not even make any sense when taken together with the Quran- and are very very off sounding when you compare the two. The idea of "abrogation" in Quran also has to be rejected outright. http://www.submission.org/abrogation.html . The many examples you give of war- you use them without including the fact that the Quran as a whole is taken together. So when it is said to fight the disbelievers, it is ONLY in defense, at all times.
[8:61.3] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them , GOD loves the righteous. [4:90] …if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.
[60:8] GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.
Fighting for the cause of allah means to fight for justice- to never accept persecution...
[4:75] Why should you not fight in the cause of GOD when weak men, women, and children are imploring: "Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master."
Nowhere in the Quran will you find it condoning violence and death just for the sake of violence and death- nor does it say that killing people who attend schools or killing women and children is what we should strive for. Its talking about a defensive war against oppressors- in "war" against an aggressor you are fierce with them in battle.
I do have to ask what translation you are using- because some quotes you posted are very poorly translated and has heavy use of parenthesis additions. For example 8:39 should read: "You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do." or "And fight them until persecution is no more, and you may devote religion all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do."
I suggest you take a look at the website I posted about earlier.
Arvin: Yes, indeed, this is an important fact. The sand barbarians basically went out to plunder, rape and pillage the more civilized peoples in the area in the name of Allah, and so their religion reflects that.
What do you know about Islamic expansion besides that it happened? Throw some facts this way about the plundering, raping, and pillaging that happened when they took control of Andalusia.
Zach_the_Lizard: auctionguy10:But also- marriage doesn't mean sex. The reason a muslim may have more than one wife for example is if he wishes to protect a poor woman- he would marry her so that she can live in her house.(Although if any women disagree to this, he is not allowed to) Yes, it is not necessary to consummate a marriage immediately. However, this marriage was consummated when Aisha was 9. Muhammad had a bunch of wives, more than is allowed to any other muslim. He had 13 wives.
Yes, it is not necessary to consummate a marriage immediately. However, this marriage was consummated when Aisha was 9. Muhammad had a bunch of wives, more than is allowed to any other muslim. He had 13 wives.
The only evidence of that marriage or consummation is some books of hadith, which contradict Quran because a young girl is nowhere near capable to make any of the mature decisions that you need to when getting married, looking at if mutual attraction is involved, the dowry to be received, etc.. Quran also mentions more than once that the only message and "hadith" that people can rely on as the truth is Quran itself. Marriage is taken seriously in Quran- there is no set age for marriage, but its clearly established that it can only happen when maturity is achieved.
But honestly, I don't feel that you really care about what I've said- you like the others that have posted have an agenda to de-value Islam and muslims into barbarians, and if that's what you wanna do you'll find some way to do it here or there.
auctionguy10: But honestly, I don't feel that you really care about what I've said- you like the others that have posted have an agenda to de-value Islam and muslims into barbarians, and if that's what you wanna do you'll find some way to do it here or there.
Yes and if I critique Communism it must mean I hate the Russians. Islam and Moslems are not interchangeable terms. I resent the acussation. Islam is pretty bad as far as ideologies go. Luckily, most Moslems, now as in the past, do not take it all that seriously or make an effort to concentrate on the better parts. Akin to the Soviets` relation to Communism post-Stalin. I need no more to misrepresent Islam to deflect acussations of anti-Moslem chauvinism than I need to misrepresent Communism to deflect acussations of anti-Soviet chauvinism.
Apparently, Islam is compatible with free-market principles:
Quran verses, teachings of Prophet Muhammad and his successors, ideas of esteemed Islamic scholars indicate Islamic tradition, unlike what we observe today, can be very compatible with free market economy. In this article, I illustrate this compatibility and then discuss the ways which might be used to flourish market-oriented economy.
As a Muslim, I can say my religious beliefs led me to Libertarianism. Strong belief in self ownership, free markets, self rule, the idea that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), strong beliefs against tyranny, and the lack of hierarchy in the religion, I cannot say being Muslim and libertarian is a coincidence. Not only are they compatible, many of the beliefs are shared, I see a strong connection. I simply want to live my life the way I want to, and others to do the same.
http://reason.com/archives/2003/07/28/revealed-libertarianism
http://www.minaret.org/
Islam is against the idea of imperialism and conquest. Muhammad (as) himself was a trader.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Qur'an 2:256)
"He who has been a ruler over ten people will be brought shackled on the Day of Resurrection, until the justice (by which he ruled) loosens his chains or tyranny brings him to destruction." Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1037
By the way, Islamic tax is implemented by a Muslims themselves, no state or tax collector knocking on your door, it's part of being a practicing Muslim.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Libertyandlife: Islam is against the idea of imperialism and conquest. Muhammad (as) himself was a trader. And that is why he himself led the armies of Islam on the conquest of the Arabian peninsula and expelled all non-Muslims. Libertyandlife: By the way, Islamic tax is implemented by a Muslims themselves, no state or tax collector knocking on your door, it's part of being a practicing Muslim.
And that is why he himself led the armies of Islam on the conquest of the Arabian peninsula and expelled all non-Muslims.
Libertyandlife: By the way, Islamic tax is implemented by a Muslims themselves, no state or tax collector knocking on your door, it's part of being a practicing Muslim.
Tell that to Muhammad, who made many pay taxes to his theocratic state, as well as forcing people to pay the Zakat and entering into military slavery.
I would hardly consider scholars such as Ibn Khaldun, or Ibn Sina (Avicenna) hampers to liberty. Nor would I consider many of the theological thought (when compared to various other practices of the place and time) negative to liberty. "Islam" and the history of the Near East from the 600's - 1600's is a complex and time consuming study. To make such broad questions, is to most likley create bad answers. Islam may not be as unified a religion, culture, or theology as you suspect.
As with most history, it may be best to study Islam for the sake of studying Islam (meaning with no "libertarian" or other concerns, while starting with Islamic primary sources instead of reading bastardized modern European works.
While I am no expert in Islam, if you wish for starting material, let me know and I will try to provide a small list to the best of my ability.
Libertyandlife: Islam is against the idea of imperialism and conquest. Muhammad (as) himself was a trader.
Didn't he later become a warlord however? The reason I ask is because as far as I know the peaceful verses of the Quran, like to treat well the "people of the book" are later abrogated by violent verses instructing intolerance and murder of the same group who do not submit to the will of Islam, not to mention the treatment of "idolaters." To what extent would you say this is true, and why?
This is not to say the Bible in comparison does not have mutually conflicting and contradictory tolerant and intolerant passages either, just this specific context in the Quran I find a cause for concern. Indeed I find it interesting that Islam became a majority religion via trade and cultural influence in areas of South East Asia like Indonesia and Malaysia, while in areas it conquered and for a time violently subjugated like India; it never achieved the same success.