Would you be comfortable with a Mosque built in your neighbourhood?

[Stacmon]

Peace through violence. Was Mohammad practicing peace with the Jews of Banu Qurayza when he wiped them out? Or was it violence? The Jews were 'invited' to convert...and when they refused, put to death.

So you tell me. Is that message one of peace? or violence?

You seem to be misinformed about this event (or misrepresenting it).

When Muhammad (pbuh) and his followers emigrated to Medina, the local tribes (including Jews), local Muslims and his entourage entered into a treaty. This is often referred to as the constitution of Medina and ensured mutual cooperation between the groups that signed on to it.

The tribe that you're describing engaged in treachery and broke the agreements they made with the Muslims. They were allies of and supported a group that was hostile to the Muslims. This is what precipitated the conflict between those groups.

Furthermore, you mention that "The Jews were 'invited' to convert...and when they refused, put to death."

This is extremely misleading. Muslims believe that if a person converts to Islam, their past sins are forgiven and they should be welcomed into the Muslim community. For example, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (the second Caliph, leader of the Muslims after Muhammad (pbuh)) was one of Muhammad's greatest enemies.

Consider the following (Wikipedia):

'Umar was most adamant in opposing Muhammad and very prominent in persecuting the Muslims. [He] resolved to assassinate Muhammad. A Muslim he met on the way told him to set his own house in order first, as his sister and her husband had converted to Islam. 'Umar went to her house and found her reciting verses of the Qur'an. He became infuriated and hit her. When he saw her bleeding, he was sorry for what he had done and in order to please her he said he would read the sura, Ta-Ha, that she had been reading. He was so struck by the sūrah that he accepted Islam that very day."

The bottom line is, when Muslims engage in combat or war, people throughout history have converted to Islam, either to spare their own lives and escape the conflict, or out of a genuine appreciation for the religion.

The Japanese, during the Second World War, were instructed by their army to say the Shahada (Islam's testimony of faith) if they were captured in Malaysia.

أشهد أن] لا إله إلاَّ الله و [أشهد أن ] محمد رسول الله ]
['ašhadu 'an] lā ilāha illā-llāh, wa ['ašhadu 'anna] muħammadan rasūlu-llāh
[ I testify that ] there is no god but God, and [ I testify that ] Muhammad is the messenger of God.

The Japanese soldiers that said this quickly saw a change in the behaviour of their captors to them. The Malaysians attitude towards them improved greatly and they were treated much better because of their perception as brothers (in Islam) and no longer enemies.

This relates to the Jews of Banu Qurayza because it is a very similar situation. The two groups were in conflict, and the lives of the Jews that converted to Islam were spared, because conversion signifies submission to God, and God in Islam is described as "Oft-Returning" "The Most Merciful."

If this conflict took place with a group other than the Muslims, conversion would never have even been an option.

Furthermore, you suggested that all Jews of Banu Qurayza were killed. That's not at all true, the men of the tribe were killed (as one would expect in a conflict), while the women and children were enslaved. This was common practice at the time, but recall that Islam discourages slavery and it is seen as a great act of charity to work towards the freedom of slaves.

 

[Stacmon]

it appears that their Scripture forgives suicide (but does it forbid suicidal attacks?).

Where on earth are you getting this? I'd like to see a reference for where you see "suicide as forgiven within Islam." The situation is the exact opposite, no form of suicide is acceptable, even if one commits suicide to kill his enemies (or "enemies of God").

The real recent example of "Muslim Aggression" was the cartoon debacle. That event showed a near-universal justification amongst the "Ummah" that violence was a reasonable outlet to a few drawings.

This is a case of Christians and Secularists/Atheists seeking to inflame Muslim sentiment. The reaction was overblown to be sure, and was much more violent in some places than it should have been. However, why do you believe that this reaction is deemed to be justified by Islam?

Surah 6, Verse 108
YUSUFALI: Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.

The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: "Anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day should either say something good or keep quiet."

 

[El_Machinae]

If anything, Islam does embrace the 'us vs them' mentality to a great degree, and if you are not part of the group mindthink then you are worse than an infidel.

Well, almost any system does, really. Family units, political leanings, nationalities, colour, etc. It's hard to specifically blame Islam for putting Muslims at a higher value than non-Muslims; almost every system does that.

If we're comparing Christianity to Islam, though, Christianity very much places an equal value on everyone, while Islam does not (and certainly Judeism did not). It's merely human fallibility that causes Christians to value other Christians more than non-Christians.

 

[El_Machinae]

Where on earth are you getting this? I'd like to see a reference for where you see "suicide as forgiven within Islam." The situation is the exact opposite, no form of suicide is acceptable, even if one commits suicide to kill his enemies (or "enemies of God").

Ah! Typo! I meant "forbids"! Sorry!

This is a case of Christians and Secularists/Atheists seeking to inflame Muslim sentiment. The reaction was overblown to be sure, and was much more violent in some places than it should have been. However, why do you believe that this reaction is deemed to be justified by Islam?

Regardless, though, the global response to the cartoons resulting in violence, property damage, death threats, intimidation, etc. shows that maybe the worries of "Muslim Aggression" are warranted. It was because of their faith in Islam that they were inflammed; even with the Scripture you quote, the response was a muslim response. Islam, and solely Islam, was the cause of the offense.

It's part of my broad condemnation that Islam is a religion where "misinterpretations" that can be abused are too common to respect it. Too often, Islam empowers people to do violence that is sure to be abused.

 

[Stacmon]

Ah! Typo! I meant "forbids"! Sorry!

Thanks for clarifying .

Regardless, though, the global response to the cartoons resulting in violence, property damage, death threats, intimidation, etc. shows that maybe the worries of "Muslim Aggression" are warranted. It was because of their faith in Islam that they were inflammed; even with the Scripture you quote, the response was a muslim response. Islam, and solely Islam, was the cause of the offense.

It's part of my broad condemnation that Islam is a religion where "misinterpretations" that can be abused are too common to respect it. Too often, Islam empowers people to do violence that is sure to be abused.

Well the point that I have tried to stress for a long time is that one should separate a religion itself from its adherents (when criticizing the religion, not the religious community).

When I heard in earlier posts that some people expected a massive, violent crackdown on millions of Western Muslims if some misguided, perverse Muslim somewhere were to detonate a Nuclear bomb, it became even more important to distinguish religion from its (sometimes "so-called") adherents.

Bottom line: No one is perfect, we're all fallible and human. However, if one assumes that God is perfect and believes in Him and His Revelation, then we shouldn't blame it for our faults and failings.

 

[MobBoss]

You seem to be misinformed about this event (or misrepresenting it).

Are you about to give me the islam party line version or were you a eye witness to the event?

The tribe that you're describing engaged in treachery and broke the agreements they made with the Muslims. They were allies of and supported a group that was hostile to the Muslims. This is what precipitated the conflict between those groups.

So...its only violent when faced with a legitmate reason to commit violence?

This is extremely misleading. Muslims believe that if a person converts to Islam, their past sins are forgiven and they should be welcomed into the Muslim community. For example, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (the second Caliph, leader of the Muslims after Muhammad (pbuh)) was one of Muhammad's greatest enemies.

Your comment is not a refutation that the jews were offered conversion and were killed when they did not.

The bottom line is, when Muslims engage in combat or war, people throughout history have converted to Islam, either to spare their own lives and escape the conflict, or out of a genuine appreciation for the religion.

"Converted to spare their own lives" does sound to me like 'convert or die'. Of course, I think it fairly easy to see a 'genuine appreciation' for the religion when one has a sword at their neck.

This relates to the Jews of Banu Qurayza because it is a very similar situation. The two groups were in conflict, and the lives of the Jews that converted to Islam were spared, because conversion signifies submission to God, and God in Islam is described as "Oft-Returning" "The Most Merciful."

And what happened to those that didnt convert? Again, all you give here directly gives evidence to the 'peace through violence' comment I made earlier. You can call it 'submit or die' or 'convert or die' still the same thing.

Furthermore, you suggested that all Jews of Banu Qurayza were killed. That's not at all true, the men of the tribe were killed (as one would expect in a conflict), while the women and children were enslaved.

Oh well gee, thats so much better.

This was common practice at the time, but recall that Islam discourages slavery and it is seen as a great act of charity to work towards the freedom of slaves.

So, let me get this straight. Its a 'great act of charity' to enslave the women and children instead of killing them? Yeah...that sounds very peacefull.

 

[Atlas14]

Actually I would feel more safe with a Mosque in my neighborhood, because then I could make friends with a bunch of Muslims, diversify my views/perspectives, and who the heck from the Middle East would terrorize an area with a Mosque?

 

[Xanikk999]

and who the heck from the Middle East would terrorize an area with a Mosque?

A terrorist from a different islamic denomination!

 

[skadistic]

I reject the building of any temple/church/mousque in my 'hood.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually I would feel more safe with a Mosque in my neighborhood, because then I could make friends with a bunch of Muslims, diversify my views/perspectives, and who the heck from the Middle East would terrorize an area with a Mosque?

oh boy.

If you hadnt noticed more than a few mosques have been bombed in Iraq. Sunni and Shia dont exactly like each other.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well the point that I have tried to stress for a long time is that one should separate a religion itself from its adherents (when criticizing the religion, not the religious community).

Oh, I very much agree. I'm trying to be careful to not put the two together. I consider Muslims to be people; prone to kindness and teamwork, prone to jealousy and fear, prone to stick with what they know instead of learning new things, etc. Just like everyone else.

I think that the religion is the problem. Islam, as a sytem, causes too many problems relative to other systems. It's too prone to abuse. It's too easy to use it to justify atrocities. I will, occassionally, have to point at the actions of Muslims in order to show this. People have a hard enough time being good people if they're extolled to only be good. If you give them holy instructions to hurt others, you're going to get more harm than most people want.

My point with the cartoon incident is that it's an excellent example of "muslim aggression"; I agree that suicide bombings are a perversion of the religion, they're obviously evil. The outrage at the cartoons, though, was so broad that it seems to be part of the faith.

So, let me get this straight. Its a 'great act of charity' to enslave the women and children instead of killing them? Yeah...that sounds very peacefull.

Try not to be too hostile in the interpretations. The women and children of the day probably needed protectors after their men were killed. If they were 'enslaved' with an eye towards getting them to be eventually freed, then it's the more moral action. Some people needed to be enslaved in order to be able to afford to maintain them. Remember that you've defended Paul's stance on slavery because it was a different form than we think of currently.

 

[Atlas14]

oh boy.

If you hadnt noticed more than a few mosques have been bombed in Iraq. Sunni and Shia dont exactly like each other.

Sure, but I would bet an evil Western symbol of power would be more on a terrorist's mind than persisting inner-Muslim conflicts found primarily back in the ME.

 

[Red Door]

Are you about to give me the islam party line version or were you a eye witness to the event?

He obviously forgot you were there as an eyewitness, right?

 

[Ansar]

I wouldn't mind it at all.

There is a jewish temple down the street where I used to live.

 

[Stacmon]

Are you about to give me the islam party line version or were you a eye witness to the event?

Saying I wasn't there to witness it doesn't change the strength of my argument - you clearly weren't there to witness it but are putting forward assertions about what took place. I'm not looking to spread propaganda, I'm simply telling you what the general consensus is about what happened.

So...its only violent when faced with a legitmate reason to commit violence?

Exactly. This was exactly the case with the Jewish Scriptures (Torah/Tanakh/Old Testament). God or the Jews engaged in violence when there was legitimate reason to, not because they were barbarous or "bad people."

The problem is that some Trinitarian Christians conveniently and completely forget the Old Testament, although they claim that it took place, and suggest that God would never condone violence. I would suggest that if you're a Trinitarian Christian, you should familiarize yourself with the two thirds of your religion's scripture (Old Testament) that you are at present ignoring.

Your comment is not a refutation that the jews were offered conversion and were killed when they did not.

"Converted to spare their own lives" does sound to me like 'convert or die'. Of course, I think it fairly easy to see a 'genuine appreciation' for the religion when one has a sword at their neck.

And what happened to those that didnt convert? Again, all you give here directly gives evidence to the 'peace through violence' comment I made earlier. You can call it 'submit or die' or 'convert or die' still the same thing.

You seem not to have understood the point I was making in my earlier post. If we were not talking about Muslims, if we were talking about one tribe of people at war with another tribe of people, all the male combatants on the losing side might have died because of the fighting (assuming they didn't surrender and become prisoners/enslaved). The fact that the converts to Islam were spared in the conflict meant that the Muslims were willing to accept former enemies into their ranks, people who admitted they were formally in error and subsequently embraced Islam.

It's not as though a group of Muslims entered a town of civilians, or approached a tribe that was not in conflict with them and demanded that all males convert, or die.

Instead, they were fighting a group that was hostile to them, and they forgave former enemy combatants that converted to Islam.

Oh well gee, thats so much better.

It is much better. First of all, your assertion that all the Jews of the tribe were killed was wrong and misleading and second of all, it paints the Muslims as barbaric, killing innocent women and children that were not involved in the conflict.

So, let me get this straight. Its a 'great act of charity' to enslave the women and children instead of killing them? Yeah...that sounds very peacefull.

Again, either you misread or completely ignored my statement. My exact words were...

"but recall that Islam discourages slavery and it is seen as a great act of charity to work towards the freedom of slaves."

I said that it is a great act of charity to free slaves, not to enslave them.

Muslims, according to their religion are required to give a specific amount of their savings to charity every year (2.5%, assuming they exceed the minimum amount).

This money for example can be spent on freeing slaves. Furthermore, people are highly encouraged to free slaves by their own will.

This is from Wikipedia regarding slavery in Islam:

In Islamic jurisprudence, slavery was an exceptional condition, with the general rule being a presumption of freedom (al-'asl huwa 'l-hurriya — "The basic principle is liberty") for a person if his or her origins were unknown[4], though enslavement was sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief. Lawful enslavement was restricted to two instances: capture in war (on the condition that the prisoner is not a Muslim), or birth in slavery. Islamic law did not recognize the classes of slave from pre-Islamic Arabia including those sold or given into slavery by themselves and others, and those indebted into slavery.[4] ... a free Muslim could not be enslaved.

Treatment

In the instance of illness it would be required for the slave to be looked after. Manumission [the act of freeing a slave] is considered a meritorious act. Based on the Quranic verse (24:33), the Islamic law permits a slave to ransom himself [pay for his own freedom] upon consent of his master through a contract known as mukataba.[4] Azizah Y. al-Hibri, a professor of Law specializing in Islamic jurispundence, states that both the Qur’an and Hadith are repeatedly exhorting Muslims to treat the slaves well and that Muhammad showed this both in action and in words.[31] Levy concurs, adding that "cruelty to them was forbidden."[32] Al-Hibri quotes the famous last speech of Muhammad and other hadiths emphasizing that all believers, whether free or enslaved, are siblings.[31]

Also, freedom was given to slaves that taught Muslims how to read and write.

Slaves that converted to Islam, although not automatically receiving their freedom, were often freed by their masters as an act of charity.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I reject the building of any temple/church/mousque in my 'hood.

Any practical reason, or just dislike of religion?

 

[Xanikk999]

Any practical reason, or just dislike of religion?

It breeds annoying people. They come knock on your door and ask you if you would like to convert.

 

[sonorakitch]

[W]ho the heck from the Middle East would terrorize an area with a Mosque?

Well, there were reportedly hundreds of Muslims killed in the WTC attacks, as most large Arab oil conglomerates were headquartered there, including SaudiAramco. I would think fundamentalists would view Muslims who emigrate to America as negatively as freshly-rolled-in-dung swine.

~Chris

 

[Stacmon]

It breeds annoying people. They come knock on your door and ask you if you would like to convert.

One thing I like about Islam is that although Muslims are instructed to inform people about their religion, if a person clearly doesn't want to hear it or is not convinced, there is no requirement to badger them until they are "saved" lol: oh you evangelical Christians).

For example, as I mentioned in other posts, my mother is an Orthodox Christian. She doesn't like the idea of me being an observant Muslim (because she's got one of those irrational, stereotypical "the world is out to get Muslims" fears) but she's fine with it. Whenever I try to have conversations about it with her, or try to advance certain arguments, she typically doesn't want to talk about it. She's not at all religious but she believes in God.

My father is a Muslim (Shi'a, though I'd say I'm a Sunni). He's not religious at all either, and if anything would rather I be not at all religious, like my mother wants .

The point is, I don't feel a need to bother my mom about it repeatedly, or my dad about being more observant.

We're basically required to bring people the message, and to engage in rational discussion/debate. What people decide to do with that information is up to them.

 

[skadistic]

Any practical reason, or just dislike of religion?

I dislike religion but there are other factors like the BS tax evasion that religions get. I loath how my taxes would have to go up to support the parisitic house of worship. And the enviromental impact of a large building and parking lot that comes with it coupled with the added traffic.