Virtual dictator? Not really. Islam teaches Shura as one of its tenets. Consultation among the Muslims to determine the best path. An early form of democracy, where the elite would meet and debate. Muhammad was not a de facto dictator.
Did he sanction further expansion? Yes, he did, as did every major religion. Proselytising is a part of every nascent faith. Conversion by force was explicitly prohibited in the Kuran. Kuran ordered Muslims to address non-Muslims using kind words and/or reason (depending on how you want to explain the text), and then leaving them alone if they refused to listen.
See, Christianity can be corrupted to excuse slavery, war, and anti-abortionists. Communism and the liberation of the working man can be construed to mean heartless, bloody dictatorships. Judaism can be construed to imply racism. It makes no difference, everything can be corrupted. This is what I meant by it makes no difference.
But this is not what you’re saying. You’re saying that Islam, by nature, is violent, oppressive and bloody. I disagree. This may your and Osama’s view, but this is not Islam how I learned it. I was taught that justice, tolerance, truth, equality, fear of god (in the sense of having a conscience and doing unto others…), love of god (in the sense of thanking him when things were good, and staying true when they were tough) were Islamic values, and that I should follow them. Naturally, I became a teenager and got over it, but this is how Islam was taught to me, by Muslims. Violence was never part of the picture, except when talking about hell, which we were assured we’d never see.
Afghanistan is a fringe element. There’s a fact you should know. A minority of Muslims live in the Middle East, let alone the doctrinaire parts such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. If you are interested in mainstream Islamic societies, have a look at places like Malaysia and Indonesia, even Turkey perhaps.
Gum is all about hate-speech and tagos while genuine, appears new to the issue. As others have noted, it just isn’t so; that ‘fundamental to Islam’ thing.
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
what I don’t understand is why anyone would even want to force former Muslims to appear Muslims on official documents. It’s not like having a specific faith listed on some state document will make you belong to that faith regardless.
Possibly true but irrelevant. Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia are where our armed forces are right now and where we have become entangled. Whether or not the brand of Islam practiced in Indonesia is warm and cuddly really doesn’t have a lot to do with that.
It does when fascists like gum are making bullshit sweeping statements.
As for Rune’s link, I reckon the Malaysian opposition should take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror, and ask why so many are fleeing from their version of the religion - stuff, perhaps, like the eastern peninsular states that have their economies based on inbound western tourism, while also attempting to ban swimsuits and mixed-gender dancing…
I am not making that argument. As you and Voyager say, every interpretation is just as valid as any other. I’m just pointing out that to say Islam is a “bad” religion is just the same as saying any religion is a “bad” religion - the difference is the prevalence of those interpretations, and unfortunetly it does seem that these “bad” interpretations of Islam are more widespread than the “bad” interpretations of any other religion at the present time.
I am not saying that every interpretation is as valid as any other. Certainly things can be interpreted, unless they are spelled out specifically. Does it say specifically that apostates must be executed? From the posts in this thread it appears so. Then any other interpretation of that message would be wrong. The only thing to interpret at that point is what is classified as apostasy.
If Muslims choose to carry out what their particular flavour of holy book commands why would people be surprised? I wonder if this was a fledgling religion in the west, would it be classified as a cult and banned, say like Scientology is in parts of Europe?
Can you wipe away a specific statement with a general principle? The specific statement (death to apostates) seems like an exception to the general rule, doesn’t it?
If I follow a general rule that says ‘do unto others as you would have others do unto you’ does that mean that if someone tries poking me with a stick I shouldn’t punch him in the nose to stop him from doing it? I know I don’t like being punched in the nose but I don’t think that general rule I follow precludes me from defending myself from others who don’t follow it.
Yes, yes you can. Mercy, in Islam, is a quality above many others, justice being one of them. I’d already posted above saying that death to apostates is clear and unequivocal, in times of war. Someone else had posted that Muhammad, who had wanted an apostate killed, was merciful and spared the apostate’s life although he was a traitor in a time of war. Under American law, I doubt he’d have had a chance. This is the principle behind the death penalty to apostates: treason. Muhammad came up with that while he was at war, any one who was an apostate had been a Muslim and had now switched camps, so is a traitor. Keep in mind that ‘there is no coercion in matters of the faith’ (or in religion, depending on your interpretation and your translation) is a principle to be followed by Muslims whenever they dealing with each other and with non-Muslims.
Every sura in the Koran starts with ‘In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate’. Anyone who ignores the importance of these two virtues is likely to agree with Osama. Or with gum.
Why do some Afghanis want the convert killed is beyond me. I visit a number of Arabic news sites that allow for comments, much like the BBC. Only everyone there is wondering what the hell difference does it make if one man converts.
He was not ‘put in charge’ of Medina - he was asked to fulfil a common cultural role of arbiter. He ‘took’ charge of Medina with the liberal use of force up to and including assasinations and massacres.
Yea - he so much wanted to be left alone he leads bandit raids on Meccan caravans. He was an aggressor from the beginning, at best an old testament style prophet allegedly serving an old testament murdering and enslaving supporting god.
Besides - ‘he started it first’ doesn’t excuse a schoolboy let alone a supposed ‘Messenger of God’. This man was more Genghis Khan with a touch of Charlie Manson (oh - the saint-like willpower of keeping his hands off that girl for three whole years, until she was 9) than he ever was a Jesus or Buddha.
For a group of people who just wanted to be left alone they sure knew how to build an empire by force didn’t they.
What you are repeating is the propaganda of eternal victimhood we see to this day- not history.
We can’t possibly know how many people have been stoned to death in villages all over the place but where sharia law has been in place death was the penalty. And remains so. note how the current guy only got off on the Koranic technicality of being mentally unfit - not through a humanitarian renunciation of such barbarity.
You are wrong. Sharia Law is quite clear. No compulsion in religion does not apply to former Muslims and you have to also take into account, when cherry-picking the Koran that Islamic Law is based firmly on the principle that later statements cancel out former ones. The progressive ban on alcohol being a good example.
You are making the mistake of treating the Koran like the Bible. It is not. Islamic Law comes from the Koran, interpreted through the acts of Mohammed and his life as incorporated in the hadiths and reinterpretation of it is officially closed. As Mohammed was perfect all his acts were justified - which is why 9 years is the magic age of young girls among many other things we find repugnant in the 21st century.
You can cherry pick phrases from the Koran all you like - it means nothing and says nothing about Islamic Law.
