Religious toleration?

[wilberhum]

where did you get that quote from anyway?

i want to make sure its accurate before even commenting on it :?

give exact link and translation plz, with correct referencing

Qur'an 9:29

 

[- Qatada -]

It seems evident that it is religion itself that promotes intolerance. By definition, a religion buids a wall of separation between "believers" and "non-believers", no matter what faith we are talking about.

If you've actually read my responses*, you'll see that this isn't the case. Infact, it unites people and causes unity among them. Infact - this is the main reason for God sending revelation to mankind, to unite them on matters where they differed.

*http://www.islamicboard.com/790412-post8.html

I think the key idea here is that the countries with most religious tolerance are not the least muslim, they are the most secular. When Christianity was taken seriously in the past, it too promoted intolerance, and also fought against every major scientific discovery, from Galileo to Darwin.

When the nations in the west threw the bible behind their backs, then they advanced.

When the nations in Muslim lands held the Qur'an firmly, they advanced in so many fields.


Refer to this link;

http://www.muslimheritage.com/

I used to be a Christian until I realised that religion rewards you for not thinking; the thinking is done for you and it is written down in a book. Surely this is not the way Allah intended us to use our brains, considering the amazing things we are capable of. When I broke down the wall between myself and the rest of humanity, I experienced great relief.

There are over 750 verses in the Qur'an which encourage thinking, pondering, contemplation and reflection.

And trust me, an infintely intelligent God would have told us the true deal a long time ago now, in order to prevent the horrific suffering that has occurred whenever religious guys disagree, whether Muslim-Christian, Muslim-Muslim, or Christian-Christian. I believe that the Bible and the Qur'an, whilst fundamentally flawed, are great literary works, and should remain just that: consigned to a book shelf.

I disagree. Atleast about the Qur'an.


Here, i invite you to check this link;

http://beconvinced.com






Regards.

 

[- Qatada -]

http://www.islamicboard.com/791278-post14.html


Bro ibnabdulHakim, i've posted him the response in the above link. It's referring to those who fight and aggress against the believers first.


And then i explained;

http://www.islamicboard.com/791282-post16.html

So from what's been mentioned above - it's referring to those who fight the muslims.

And secondly, those who pay the jizya - they can't be harmed, as the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

Sahih Al Bukhari Volumn 009, Book 083, Hadith Number 049.


Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Amr : The Prophet said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)."


"The non muslims who are protected by sharee’ah (laws of islam) are of three types:


1 – Al-dhimmi. This is one with whom we have a contract or treaty of al-dhimmah (i.e., one who lives in a Muslim state)

2 – Al-mu’aahad. This is one with whose people we have a peace treaty.

3 – Al-musta’man. This is one who has entered the Muslim land and has been guaranteed safety, such as those who come to do business, to work, to visit relatives, and so on."
​

Peace.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Qur'an 9:29

aah i read it, i think it means fight them IF THEY REFUSE TO PAY, so as a punishment for refusing to help the needy they are made to feel subdued.

This isnt barbaric at all, i've heard of heads flying off and women raped etc, all they do is feel low (as given in another translation).


thats their penalty, WHY ARE THEY REFUSING TO HELP THE POOR? what greed imsad

 

[wilberhum]

This isnt barbaric at all

Hu, who said any thing about barbaric?
I'm talking about the implication of equality?
Though the situation was better than most others, it is not equality.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Hu, who said any thing about barbaric?
I'm talking about the implication of equality?
Though the situation was better than most others, it is not equality.

it is well known that, the disbelievers during the times of the muslims enjoyed the dunya a LOT, and the muslims didnt.

You want equality, then feel content knowing that the true muslims during the times of the prophet sallallahi alaihi wasallaam always had less but they were content awaiting the reward of the hereafter.


the prophet when he took prisoners of war, gave them bread and let them rest free, and guess what the muslims had nothing but dates....

and then you talk about equality...

 

[wilberhum]

dunya? What is that?

the prophet when he took prisoners of war, gave them bread and let them rest free

Is that what he did to The Banu Qurayza?

 

[- Qatada -]

dunya? What is that?

The dunya is the world.


About the concept of people being humiliated, don't you think they would be if they fought against the believers? I.e. No matter who fights who, isn't the party who loses therefore humiliated?


Even then, we aren't allowed to curse the one who is protected by the Muslims. Since his/her honor is protected.


The Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said:

"Whoever hurts a dhimmi, hurts me. And whoever hurts me, he annoys God." [Sahih Al Bukhari]


"Beware! On The Day of Judgment, I shall myself be the complainant against him who wrongs a dhimmi, or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear, or deprives him of anything that belongs to him."
​

[Al-Mawardi]

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/45329-myth-islamic-intolerance.html


​

Is that what he did to The Banu Qurayza?

Clarified here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/640507-post8.html




Peace.

 

[wilberhum]

So "the prophet when he took prisoners of war, gave them bread and let them rest free" didn't apply.
I always get this image of this old crippled man being let out to be beheaded for treason. Every single person in the entire tribe was guilty of Treason?
Na, it is called collective punishment.

 

[- Qatada -]

So "the prophet when he took prisoners of war, gave them bread and let them rest free" didn't apply.
I always get this image of this old crippled man being let out to be beheaded for treason. Every single person in the entire tribe was guilty of Treason?
Na, it is called collective punishment.

If you're talking about the Bani Quraydha situation, there are many proofs which state that before they were executed for their treason - their houses were sieged [since they lived within Medina], the houses were searched and they found weapons lying on the tables etc. These weapons were being prepared to fight against the Muslims. Especially once they had found out that the Quraysh and Ghattafaan had deserted and betrayed them.


There were people who never got involved, infact - there were some Jews who never got involved, including a Jewish man called Zubair who was blind, and he said that he never got involved in this whole scenario. Therefore he was freed. There may have been more, but i can't remember the names right now off by heart.




In regard to the issue of slavery, i really urge you to read this link;


The Islamic position on Slavery: A refutation of doubts
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=815&section=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions


Infact, it was due to Islamic teachings that slavery actually got abolished throughout the world.



Let's see what the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said should be the rights of slaves;

"Those slaves are your brothers, only God gave you an upper hand over them. So let that who has his brother (i.e. slave) under him give him the same food he himself eats, and the same clothing as he himself wears. The master may not give his brother a task that is beyond his ability. If he does give him such task, let him lend him a hand."


​

He (peace be upon him) also said:

' If a man hits or beats his slave, his atonement is the freeing of that slave.

Reported by Muslim and Abu Dawood.


​

There are more narrations of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him):

'Umar bin Al-Khattab once walked in Makkah and saw some slaves standing aside waiting, while their master ate. He was angry at this and inquired of the master :

"Why do some masters regard themselves as superior to their slaves ? "
​

Then he ordered the slaves to advance and eat.



A man once entered the house of Salman, may God be pleased with him, and saw him kneading his dough. "What are you doing, Abu 'Abdullah? " " I have sent my servant on an errand, " he answered. " So I didn't like to give him some more work." This is some of what Islam did for slaves !



​

Thanks for your time.





Regards.

 

[wilberhum]

Na, it is called collective punishment.

But I understand if you took any different stance, you would be guilty of Aposticy.
Faith and Fact will frequently clash.

 

[- Qatada -]

It's upto you to believe that, i've stated the facts.




Regards.

 

[Amadeus85]

When the nations in the west threw the bible behind their backs, then they advanced.

When the nations in Muslim lands held the Qur'an firmly, they advanced in so many fields.


Regards.

This statement is just ignorant and offensive. It also proves that your knowledge about european history isn't impressive. First of all the great progress in european science and knowledge called renesaince began in XV century. And christianity played major role in life of those people. The same can be said about XVI, XVII cantury. Just in XVIII century such attitudes like deism or atheism appeared. But still they werent so common even among higher classes and aristocracy, as great majority of educated people were christians. The truth is that untill XIX and XX century christianity was the leading moral force in Europe and the great majority of great people in that times were christians. For example, Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare, Jan Sebastian Bach, Mozart, Dante, Leonardo da vinci,Michael Angelo, Copernicus, Erazm from Rotterdam. If you look at it closer, you will see that the fall of european power began just with the rejecting christin values and beliefs, since the 60's in XX century and that contrrevolution.

And about muslim countries.. I think that people in muslim countries hold Quaran firmly as nowadays as in medieval times. But somehow, since medival, muslim contribution to world's knowledge and technology is extremely low, if you consider muslims' number in the world. Compare it at least to Jews' contribution to knowledge and inventions.

 

[August]

Infact, it was due to Islamic teachings that slavery actually got abolished throughout the world.

Sorry, but no. It was the British Empire that ended slavery. In fact, every culture in all of human existence has practiced slavery. Like it or not, Western European Culture (and its new world offshoots) is the only culture in all of human existence to decide on its own to end slavery.

 

[wilberhum]

Infact, it was due to Islamic teachings that slavery actually got abolished throughout the world.

Is there no end to your indoctrination?

 

[asadxyz]

Sorry, but no. It was the British Empire that ended slavery. In fact, every culture in all of human existence has practiced slavery. Like it or not, Western European Culture (and its new world offshoots) is the only culture in all of human existence to decide on its own to end slavery.

Peace:
Your statement like this is because you are ignorant of Islam.1400 years back Islam raised voice against all sorts of slavery:
ONE MAJOR MISSION OF THE HOLY PROPHET :arabic5:

وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَآئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالأَغْلاَلَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ

He makes the clean things lawful to them and prohibits all corrupt things, *114 and removes from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them. (7:157)​

EVEN PROPHETS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENSLAVE ANYONE:

مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُؤْتِيَهُ اللّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُواْ عِبَادًا لِّي مِن دُونِ اللّهِ(3:79)

It does not befit a man that Allah should grant him His Book and sound judgement and prophet-hood, and thereafter he should say to men: 'Become servants to me apart from Allah.​

Best of luck

 

[Malaikah]

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Does it make you feel subdued? :skeleton:

Since the verse is referring to people who are in some way being aggressive against the Muslims, then obviously they need to be subdued. What good is it if they pay the tax but still try to be aggressive? ^o)

 

[Pynthanomai]

It seems evident that it is religion itself that promotes intolerance. By definition, a religion buids a wall of separation between "believers" and "non-believers", no matter what faith we are talking about.

I think the key idea here is that the countries with most religious tolerance are not the least muslim, they are the most secular. When Christianity was taken seriously in the past, it too promoted intolerance, and also fought against every major scientific discovery, from Galileo to Darwin.

I used to be a Christian until I realised that religion rewards you for not thinking; the thinking is done for you and it is written down in a book. Surely this is not the way Allah intended us to use our brains, considering the amazing things we are capable of. When I broke down the wall between myself and the rest of humanity, I experienced great relief.

And trust me, an infintely intelligent God would have told us the true deal a long time ago now, in order to prevent the horrific suffering that has occurred whenever religious guys disagree, whether Muslim-Christian, Muslim-Muslim, or Christian-Christian. I believe that the Bible and the Qur'an, whilst fundamentally flawed, are great literary works, and should remain just that: consigned to a book shelf. In other words, I believe we should all become secularised. By the way, it's no coincidence that the U.S.A is a statisical anomaly among Western nations when it comes to crime: it is the only one which is fervently religious. This is not my opinion, the link has been studied in the past. It is not a case of "correlation is not causation" either, because most jail in-mates are religious, and they became such before they were sentenced.

I can understand your sentiments about religion and Christianity. But your suggestion that "we should all become secularised", while a popular desire among many people, has never been properly reconciled in my mind. Without the objective standard of right and wrong provided by religion, upon what basis would humans found their morality? As I have been taught, morality without religion is relative. But what confidence can we have that humans, each man, woman and child using his or her own personal and particular ideas, notions, conceptions and prejudices about morality, will not end up sinking in unending suffering and squalour?

For, to be brief, what weapon of logic or reason can contend against each person's own opinion on the matter? since, through secularism, we will have granted each individual no other means or machinery by which to come to any conclusion about any matter pertinent to morality. Relativity leaves no place for anyone to be "right" or "wrong". People will be reduced to congregating according to their circumstances or coincidences of sentiment about particular morals, and fighting amongst each other to impose them upon others.

 

[Trumble]

Without the objective standard of right and wrong provided by religion, upon what basis would humans found their morality? As I have been taught, morality without religion is relative. But what confidence can we have that humans, each man, woman and child using his or her own personal and particular ideas, notions, conceptions and prejudices about morality, will not end up sinking in unending suffering and squalour?

Because that morality, or more precisely the behaviour towards other people determined by it, is in the best overall interests of both the individual themselves (the 'golden rule' principal) and of their society. People do not want to "end up sinking in unending suffering and squalour" hence morality will become established with or without religion. Society itself, even at the most basic level, cannot function without morality and societies existed long before organised religion of any sort, let alone revealed Abrahamic religion. Religious morality merely reflects and codifies general morality.. and has proved a very effective tool historically for enforcing it.

Necessary morality can be codified and enforced just as well, and usually better, by secular law.. and that is exactly what has happened in many places from antiquity to the present day. The main advantage, I think, is flexibility; a secular approach can address contemporary moral issues (such as abortion, stem cell research, genetic engineering, environmental polution etc etc) head on without needing increasingly far-fetched, extended and increasing irrelevant 'interpretations' of ancient writings. And it can do so without favouring one religious tradition over another, where conflicts may exist.

 

[CptSunbeam]

I agree with many of these points, but it seems to me that most human have an inherent morality by default, perhaps because we may have a creator. Naturally, we created organised religion as a direct consequence of our morality, not the other way around. I concede that belief in life's purpose is important in this, and the atheists and stalinists that did not believe in such a purpose commited great wrongs. However, this does not nullify my argument. They could have still chosen to obey their in-built conscience and turned to doing good.

Organised, or even non-organised religion is not necessary for this. I know its tempting to say that we would "sink into suffering and squalor" wothout religion, but history has already proved this wrong. Throughout most of history, we've had suffering and squalor. and throughout most of history, we've had deep religious belief. Today, many of us live longer and healthier than the richest King of times past. We dont have to face the (real) risk of death and mutilation daily. If you doubt this, I encourage research on the matter. It's no use being on denial on the matter. In the past four centuries, starting with Copernicus, Tycho Brae and Gallieo, there's been a steady increase in scientific understanding. There's also been a slow but sure decrease in religious belief.

Sure, we also have some terrible problems, but these are magnified by technology and intensive human activity. I think that, faced with the destructive power we have, it's remarkable that we haven't destroyed ourselves. What would have happened if say the Roman Empire had access to even conventional weaponry? Or the crusaders? The Mongols? It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but we're a great deal more civilised since we diluted religious belief.