Adam Deen | Islam Is A Peaceful Religion

[Phaeton80]

What you are promoting as "what scripture says/states", is not what scripture says/states. For sure, you can interpret scripture as you do via cherry-picking only those parts which suit your particular philosophy - but is that then really "Islam" as the Qu'ran, surah and hadith state it to be?

Also, would you suggest your philosophy "to be tolerant, respectful, forgiving, resist the ego, etc" is not the ethos behind the body of law in any number of societies, secular or not?

So why suggest it is Islam which is 'peaceful'? Surely it is basic humanism which is the motivation for peaceful co-existence, while Islam (along with other religions) simply co-opts this general humanistic ethos into it's scripture to promote itself. Like those other religions, however, Islam adds discrimination and prejudice into the mix by suggesting there is only one "true way".

And is it not one of the duties of a good Muslim to promote the Qu'ran as "the Law"? I understand that many muslims in non-Islamic countries opt not to pursue this, but that does not make them right according to Islam. So, what is "right" according to Islam? Should making the Qu'ran law be pursued, and what if there is resistance to this?

Regarding your first statement; I would kindly beg to differ. Its the other way around. Only by cherry picking certain verses, one can legitimize agressive, violent acts against civilians - or those that do not harm you.

Given the basis for our present judicial ethos was Judeo- Christian, one would indeed find comparable aspects in both. I do see a parallel between the decline of societal morals and values along with the decline of religious values (in a timeframe starting from ~1950'ies to the present).

If 'humanity' was such a basic human trait, the world would not look like it does today, wouldnt you agree? There are ample human traits that need some serious demping. We are nothing but children, deaf - dumb and blind children. Quite literally. We stumble around in the dark while thinking we are the be all end all of reality. Very dangerous combination.

[Edit: add quote, which I realized was missing just a few seconds ago]

Edited December 8, 2013 by Phaeton80

[Leonardo]

Regarding your first tatement; I would kindly beg to differ. Its the other way around. Only by cherry picking certain verses, one can legitimize agressive, violent acts against civilians - or those that do not harm you.

Whether one has to cherry-pick from the Qu'ran to "legitimise aggression" isn't the point. That it contains statements that can be chrerry-picked to legitimse aggression contradicts your premise from the OP that "Islam is a peaceful religion".

If 'humanity' was such a basic human trait, the world would not look like it does today, wouldnt you agree? There are ample human traits that need some serious demping. We are nothing but children, deaf - dumb and blind children. Quite literally. We stumble around in the dark while thinking we are the be all end all of reality. Very dangerous combination.

One could say it is the influence of religion that has, in part, kept us as "dumb and blind children".

[Phaeton80]

Whether one has to cherry-pick from the Qu'ran to "legitimise aggression" isn't the point. That it contains statements that can be chrerry-picked to legitimse aggression contradicts your premise from the OP that "Islam is a peaceful religion".

I can only say I simply disagree. Even when you define 'religion' as the religious (in this case Islamic) congregation only.. You cant label a group of people violent when a small percentage of them act in a violent way.

One could say it is the influence of religion that has, in part, kept us as "dumb and blind children".

Not if you see scripture as truth, as reality. People who used religion as a platform for power, and went directly against the teachings in doing so, kept us down. No one else.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Phaeton80

[Leonardo]

Not if you see scripture as truth, as reality. People who used religion as a platform for power, and went directly against the teachings in doing so, kept us down. No one else.

And, again, that's the point - they didn't "go against the teachings".

Oh, they might have gone against the teachings you cherry-pick from scripture, but they were able to cherry-pick teachings to justify their aggresssion, or desire for power, or whatever "evil" you wish to declare Muslims have committed, but are not "Islamic".

What you believe Islam is, is not Islam unless it includes ALL that Islam says through it's scripture and "teachings".

And because religions promote division - because they promote discrimination and prejudice - they have kept us "dumb and blind children".

You are entitled to your belief of what any religion "is", but your belief does not define that religion. That definition is gleaned from what it's adherents, and non-adherents, are able to justify from it's teachings.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Leonardo

[Philangeli]

I am living in 2013 if this is your real question.

we are talking about the essence of religions here. not about how people are treating each other. if we were to look at how people understood christianity or islam there are may examples to show both those religions were misused because people found it appropriate to hate another.

This thread is about Islam, not Christianity. If you wish to beef about Christianity, start your own thread.

If the true essence of religion is not about how people treat each other, whether via God/Allah/Universe/Om, what is it about?

The essence of truth (and originally what religion was supposed to impart to mankind) is translated into this world as love for fellow man - not following rules blindly - walking 5 steps behind your husband, living in fear lest he give you a smack for not having his dinner ready on time, etc.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Philangeli

[Leonardo]

If the true essence of religion is not about how people treat each other, whether via God/Allah/Universe/Om, what is it about?

Subservience to an alleged divine authority.

Because religion is not ethics, and it is ethics which is about "how people should treat each other."

[Grandpa Greenman]

Not if you see scripture as truth, as reality. People who used religion as a platform for power, and went directly against the teachings in doing so, kept us down. No one else.

So called truth comes in many forms and in many different scriptures. All scriptures are just one opinion of reality and they are not of equal merit. Even within them there is good and bad passages. All books are of paper, ink and the opinions of men. Nothing sacred about them and yet if someone sees them with a critical eye they can be imprisoned or worse. Put your book in a river it rots and washes away, but the river remains.

[Phaeton80]

And, again, that's the point - they didn't "go against the teachings".

Oh, they might have gone against the teachings you cherry-pick from scripture, but they were able to cherry-pick teachings to justify their aggresssion, or desire for power, or whatever "evil" you wish to declare Muslims have committed, but are not "Islamic".

What you believe Islam is, is not Islam unless it includes ALL that Islam says through it's scripture and "teachings".

And because religions promote division - because they promote discrimination and prejudice - they have kept us "dumb and blind children".

You are entitled to your belief of what any religion "is", but your belief does not define that religion. That definition is gleaned from what it's adherents, and non-adherents, are able to justify from it's teachings.

You dont seem to understand my point. The whole content of the Qur'an is exactly what is needed to not fall into misinterpretations as to the peaceful nature of it.

[thyra]

@Philangeli. I dont personally have anything to question about christianity at the moment, but thanks for the suggestion. I think your questions are already answered by fellow forumers.. Oppresion of women or weak isnt a feature of islam. Perhaps you should begin by explaining why you think they particularly belong to islam.

[Leonardo]

You dont seem to understand my point. The whole content of the Qur'an is exactly what is needed to not fall into misinterpretations as to the peaceful nature of it.

Well, from where I am sitting it appears to me that you don't understand my point. That you are interpreting the Qu'ran only according to what you have cherry-picked from it, and then applying that as if your interpretation was "Islam". But it is only what you have interpreted, others interpret different things from the Qu'ran - or intepret the same things in a different way. Regardless, it contradicts your premise of Islam as a "religion of peace".

It's not unique to you, or Islam, because I have observed this behaviour in those who choose to believe similar things about many religions.

[Phaeton80]

Lets just agree to disagree, shall we?

[Leonardo]

We can certainly agree that we disagree. Did you post your OP to garner thoughtful debate, or because you believed it to be "the truth"?

[Phaeton80]

Did we not just have a thoughtful exchange?

I do agree with a lot of what the OP offers, thought that was pretty obvious.

[Davros of Skaro]

^{Here is a conversation with an apostate from Islam.It's also mentions an example of picking, and chosing near same verses with different contexts.}

[+Link of Hyrule]

Funny, the commentator said that many of the original youtube comments called for the uploaders to be tracked down and beaten with cricket bats. Very tolerant behaviour

There's a suburb in Sydney where several parts you wouldn't walk down unless you're Aboriginal Australian. To do so can be dangerous. Does this mean the Aboriginal people of Australia are a danger to our way of life?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Whether one has to cherry-pick from the Qu'ran to "legitimise aggression" isn't the point. That it contains statements that can be chrerry-picked to legitimse aggression contradicts your premise from the OP that "Islam is a peaceful religion".

One could say it is the influence of religion that has, in part, kept us as "dumb and blind children".

If the United Nations is intended to promote peace then why are so many of its affiliates engaged in war operations (either now or in the past). Can I look at a UN report on violence in the Middle East and then use it as justification to kill my doctor who was born in Iraq. Or would that be taking it out of context (aka, cherry-picking)?

[Davros of Skaro]

Funny, the commentator said that many of the original youtube comments called for the uploaders to be tracked down and beaten with cricket bats. Very tolerant behaviour

There's a suburb in Sydney where several parts you wouldn't walk down unless you're Aboriginal Australian. To do so can be dangerous. Does this mean the Aboriginal people of Australia are a danger to our way of life?

Natural response, but I did hear that a women bought a pet Pig for her walks as not to be harrassed.

It's more like you are a danger to their way of life.LOL!

[+Link of Hyrule]

Natural response, but I did hear that a women bought a pet Pig for her walks as not to be harrassed.

It's more like you are a danger to their way of life.LOL!

Natural response because it's obvious. You are trying to argue how intolerant Muslims are, and yet non-Muslims are the ones calling for people to be beaten with cricket bats.

I'm just saying that pockets of ethnic groups in large cities is part and parcel of urban life, and doesn't mean that they want to eat your babies.

[Davros of Skaro]

Natural response because it's obvious. You are trying to argue how intolerant Muslims are, and yet non-Muslims are the ones calling for people to be beaten with cricket bats.

Women in vid: "This is Great Britain!".

Muslim in vid: "Not so Great Britain"

Not to mention the Muslim's utterence about the throat to a citizen being bullied out of the area.

Now you expect people to think of sending flowers....LOL! You are funny.

I'm just saying that pockets of ethnic groups in large cities is part and parcel of urban life, and doesn't mean that they want to eat your babies.

You say alot of things, and once again I will let others decide for themselves beyond your apologetics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0GqNL40h4

[Philangeli]

@Philangeli. I dont personally have anything to question about christianity at the moment, but thanks for the suggestion. I think your questions are already answered by fellow forumers.. Oppresion of women or weak isnt a feature of islam. Perhaps you should begin by explaining why you think they particularly belong to islam.

Where shall I start (sigh):

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..." Allah telling Job to beat his wife.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.

Bukhari (72:715) - "Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women'" This is Muhammad's own wife complaining of the abuse that the women of her religions suffer relative to other women.

Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."

Muslim (9:3506) - Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.

Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them." At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.

Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'" A Muslim man thinks his is getting a virgin, then finds out she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the child.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 969 - Requires that a married woman be "put in a separate room and beaten lightly" if she "act in a sexual manner toward others." According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related.

Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525) - [Muhammad said] "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it"

Additional Notes:

Some contemporary Muslim apologists often squirm over this relatively straightforward verse from the Qur'an (4:34) - which actually give men the right to beat their wives if they even have a "fear" of disloyalty or disobedience. Their rhetorical aerobics inspired us to write a separate article:

Wife Beating- Good Enough for Muhammad, Good Enough for You

Others are not nearly as squeamish. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradhawi, one of the most respected Muslim clerics in the world, once made the famous (and somewhat ridiculous statement) that "It is forbidden to beat the woman, unless it is necessary." He also went on to say that "one may beat only to safeguard Islamic behavior," leaving no doubt that wife-beating is a matter of religious sanction. (source)

Dr. Muzammil Saddiqi, the former president of ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America), a mainstream Muslim organization, says it is important that a wife "recognizes the authority of her husband in the house" and that he may use physical force if he is "sure it would improve the situation." (source)

Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Muhammad Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the head of Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's most prestigious institution says that "light beatings" and "punching" are part of a program to "reform the wife" (source).

Dr. Jamal Badawi endorses corporal punishment as "another measure that may save the marriage" (source). He isn't clear on how striking a woman will make her more inclined toward staying with her assailant, unless the implication is fear of a more serious beating if she leaves.

Egyptian cleric, Abd al-Rahman Mansour, said in a 2012 televised broadcast that in addition to discouraging the wife from filing divorce, beatings would inspire the wife to "treat him with kindness and respect, and know that her husband has a higher status than her." (source)

During Ramadan of 2010, another cleric named Sa'd Arafat actually said the woman is "honored" by the beating (source). No one else seemed terribly surprised by this.

An undercover report from progressive Sweden in 2012 found that 60% of mosques there actually advised beaten women not to report the abuse to the police. These women were also told that they must submit to non-consensual 'sex' with their husbands. (source)

In the birthplace of Islam, about half of Saudi women are beaten at home. "Hands and sticks were found to be used mostly in beating women, following by men’s head cover and to a lesser extent, sharp objects." (source)

According to Islamic law, a husband may strike his wife for any one of the following four reasons:

- She does not attempt to make herself beautiful for him (ie. "let's herself go")

- She refuses to meet his sexual demands

- She leaves the house without his permission or for a "legitimate reason"

- She neglects her religious duties

Any of these are also sufficient grounds for divorce.

Respected Quran scholars from the past interpreted verse 4:34 with impressive candor. Tabari said that it means to "admonish them, but if they refused to repent, then tie them up in their homes and beat them until they obey Allah’s commands toward you." Qurtubi told wife-beaters to try to avoid breaking bones, but added that "it is not a crime if it leads to death." (source)

Muslim apologists sometimes say that Muhammad ordered that women not be harmed, but they are actually basing this on what he said before or during battle, such as in Bukhari (59:447), when Muhammad issued a command for all the men of Quraiza be killed and the women and children taken as slaves. (Having your husband murdered and being forced into sexual slavery apparently doesn't qualify as "harm" under the Islamic model).

But, in fact, there are a number of cases in which Muhammad did have women killed in the most brutal fashion. One was Asma bint Marwan, a mother or five, who wrote a poem criticizing the Medinans for accepting Muhammad after he had ordered the murder of an elderly man. In this case, the prophet's assassins literally pulled a sleeping infant from her breast and stabbed her to death.

After taking Mecca in 630, Muhammad also ordered the murder of a slave girl who had merely made up songs mocking him. The Hadith are rife as well with accounts of women planted in the ground on Muhammad's command and pelted to death with stones for sexual immorality - yet the prophet of Islam actually encouraged his own men to rape women captured in battle (Abu Dawood 2150, Muslim 3433) and did not punish them for killing non-Muslim women (as Khalid ibn Walid did on several occasions - see Ibn Ishaq 838 and 856).

In summary, according to the Qur'an, Hadith and Islamic law, a woman may indeed have physical harm done to her if the circumstances warrant, with one such allowance being in the case of disobedience. This certainly does not mean that all Muslim men beat their wives, only that Islam permits them to do so. (Extracted from www.****************.com)

[thyra]

@philangeli very good findings you have there indeed. I wonder how it makes you feel.:-)

[Philangeli]

@philangeli very good findings you have there indeed. I wonder how it makes you feel.:-)

As I told you earlier - dismayed, dismayed that there are even intelligent people who blindly allow themselves to be indoctrinated, believing that such stuff is the 'truth', even when the evidence dictates otherwise, even when so many are physically and emotionally scarred as a result. Islam gives men free rein to do what they like with women - fact.

[Leonardo]

If the United Nations is intended to promote peace then why are so many of its affiliates engaged in war operations (either now or in the past). Can I look at a UN report on violence in the Middle East and then use it as justification to kill my doctor who was born in Iraq. Or would that be taking it out of context (aka, cherry-picking)?

Do you want to, PA?

Because if you feel you can justify your actions via a UN report, then by all means do so.

And cherry-picking doesn't have to be taking things out of context. There is plenty of 'context' in the scripture of various religions to allow for believers to pick-and-choose passages justifying aggression; discrimination; prejudice; and yet remain "in context" with that scripture.

Simply because those passages are not on your "context radar" does not exclude them from being part of that religion.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

Islam does permit beating wife for all the reasons u have wrote @philangeli.

But that doesnt mean that all muslims beat their wife. Or maybe, it does?

[edit] Just to add one reminder...

'The horrible truth is that, numerically and statistically speaking, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of history, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. Even so, Muslims will never associate this violence and blood bath with the teachings of Jesus (peace be on him). '

Edited December 9, 2013 by Sir Smoke aLot

[Philangeli]

Islam does permit beating wife for all the reasons u have wrote @philangeli.

But that doesnt mean that all muslims beat their wife. Or maybe, it does?

No, it doesn't mean all muslims beat their wives. I am referring to what their religion condones and whether that is at odds with the statement made in the OP (that Islam is a peaceful religion).

Edited December 9, 2013 by Philangeli