Islam as religion of peace

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GePap
And how did Christianity spread?

Had not the late Roman emperors made it the state religion and crushed any competitors, it would hardly have become the religion of Europe. Have you ever studies how many germanic tribes, like the Saxons, were Chritianized? It was not just by monks. The accusation that the religion was spread by war could also be levelled against Hinduism, which as the religion of the Aryan warriors that decended upon India.

Also note that the biggest Muslim state in the world is Indonesia, a place no Muslim armies ever touched. In fact, islam in places like Indonesia and Malaysia are the result of local conversions after contacts with Muslims traders.

It should also be noted that Western Christians are generally to blame for the fact that Egypt and Syria so entrenchedly muslim: it was the Crusaders that destroyed eastern christianity in just a couple of centuries, were about 400 previous years of Muslim rule had failed.

Uhhhh......How were the Saxons Christianized, if not by monks? When they arrived in Britain they were most certainly pagans. Only after settling in Britain did they convert, and they certainly were not conquered by the Christian Britons.

Actually Islam was spread to Indonesia from the Sultanate of Delhi, which did indeed send armed expositions several times to convert various tribes. Incredibly, the Dutch also helped to spread Islam throughout Indonesia. The Dutch East India Company, which was more interested in making money than converts to the Dutch Reformed Church, allied itself with Muslim chieftans, and provided them with arms and training, enabling them to complete the conquest of Indonesia.

At the beginning of the 19th century Egypt and Palestine were still more than 50% Christian according to both French and British scholars who accompanied their nations' armies during the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars. After the Ottomans finally drove the British out the Ottoman empire went through a phase of conservatism that included draconian measures to repress the non-muslim communities. In Egypt and Palestine Christians were barred from many political and economic positions. Taxes were levied that made it virtually impossible for Christians to raise children. Of course, penalties for persons who broke these laws were as severe as to be expected. I might also point out that early in the history of the Ottoman empire the bulk of its troops consisted of Christian conscripts, who were taken before the age of ten. They were not forced to convert, but at one time those who chose not to were neutered at the time they were retired from service.

[Elok]

While Islam may or may not have come to Indonesia with an army, it sure as hell has one now. Setting fire to churches(often after locking their members inside) and killing local priests is a very popular sport at the moment in some parts of the country. Again, not attacking Islam; I understand full well that the groups working in Indonesia are fringe groups and radicals. Just felt obligated to point out that Indonesia is not a peaceful islamic state at the moment.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Comeon Gepap, think, can't you see the obvious difference here? Christianity and Islam were both spread by the sword; however in Islam it was actually the most holy prophet himself and the founder of the religion who spread his religion by the sword. The people who forcefully spread Christianity were people claiming to be following Jesus; not Jesus himself.

Muslims spread their political control by the sword, but did they force anyone to convert? Did Mohammed kill all the non-Muslims in the lands his armies conquered? War in the 7th century was always an ugly thing, but since we know that for example the old provinces of the Byzantine Empire were mostly Christian until the Crusades, obviously Mohammed and his army comming trough did not mean that either you became a Muslim or else... the same can't be said when a Christian army came and decided they wanted the area to be Christian.
Exerting political control and the political climate to make it fertile ground for your religion is not a pacifist act, but neither does it make your religion one of war mongering. So no, i don't buy the "Mohammend sprad his relegion by war, it most be violent" any more than I would believe "Chrtist had little to do with real Christianity since it was Paul and other s that actually spread it beyond Jews". And thenm of course, there is the history after the very beginning and how followers interpreted the teachings of their fellows in order to make a judgement. Overall, i don't see the hisotry of islam being drapped in more blood than that of Christianity.

Strangelove:

1. Saxons as in the area of Saxony in germany, not the branch that got itself on a few boat. Charlemagne was a bit bloody in his Chritianizing campaign there.

At the beginning of the 19th century Egypt and Palestine were still more than 50% Christian according to both French and British scholars who accompanied their nations' armies during the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars. After the Ottomans finally drove the British out the Ottoman empire went through a phase of conservatism that included draconian measures to repress the non-muslim communities. In Egypt and Palestine Christians were barred from many political and economic positions. Taxes were levied that made it virtually impossible for Christians to raise children. Of course, penalties for persons who broke these laws were as severe as to be expected. I might also point out that early in the history of the Ottoman empire the bulk of its troops consisted of Christian conscripts, who were taken before the age of ten. They were not forced to convert, but at one time those who chose not to were neutered at the time they were retired from service.

I would really, really doubt that, given that 1. The ottomans lost Egypt to Napoleon early in the 19th century and then after a few years of chaos, for ever lost control of Egypt to thier rater independent local governor, Mohammed Ali. As for the Jannessaries, they were converted, all of them. That was the point: take young kids from non-Muslim communities and convert them into loyal warrior for the Ottoman Sultan.

Since this account of yours makes little sense given the actual history of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century (specially the notion of "kicking the Brits out" at the same time that the Ottomans were signing lots of trade treaetis that gave European states exclusive control over large portions of Ottoman trade, or the fact that britian wanted to maintain the Ottomans as a buffer to Russian expansion (crimean war)) I choose to, untl given some sort of reliable documentation, I find it quite dubious.

Also, as to the treatment you describe, Christians would never have been able to "run" for office, since 1. you didn't 'run' for anyting, this was an empire, and 2. the Ottomans had never allowed for non-Muslims to hold positions of power. how could what they ahd always done be new? The same can be said for special taxes levied on non-muslim communities. This was always the case.

So again, i take this account of your with a grain of salt the size of Texas.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by GePap

Muslims spread their political control by the sword, but did they force anyone to convert? Did Mohammed kill all the non-Muslims in the lands his armies conquered? War in the 7th century was always an ugly thing, but since we know that for example the old provinces of the Byzantine Empire were mostly Christian until the Crusades, obviously Mohammed and his army comming trough did not mean that either you became a Muslim or else... the same can't be said when a Christian army came and decided they wanted the area to be Christian.

Of course, Muhammad did not kill everybody, yet his actions were still very violent and are far from being "peaceful". Muhammad was not worse than other people in his centuries but the difference is: He was the founder of a religion converting every hate-speech to his army into the very word of God.

Moreover, Christians didn't so much force to convert either most of the time, actually it was allowed only partially even in the most intolerant periods. Christians had no right to force Jews into conversion and generally they didn't. During the Spanish colonial period there was a theological consense that those Indians could not be forced to convert (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, but again it's easy to find forced conversions in the Ottoman Empire too, but it lacks in both cases a good theological argument) because they were "heathens" who had not yet heard the gospel.
The very brutally acting Almoravids in North Africa and Spain did make pogroms and forced conversions. Of course, they're not representative for Islam though, just like pogroms in Europe aren't representative for Christianity itself.
Expelling and/or fighting against non-believers if they set "acts against the faithful" is absolutely justyfied and even ordered by Muhammad and it's always the question when such a thing applies... So it's within the nature of this text to be interpreted in a narrow way.
And about the Christians in the Near East until the crusades: As I've pointed out the Islam has Christians and Jews as "privileged" non-believers who have a chance of sticking to their religion. Yet with all the restrictions I've named: Stigmatized ckloth, court discrimination, humiliation (explicitely named in Quran 9,29), forbidden to "endanger the faith of the believers" (<-- not meant for abuse of course), forbidden to build or even reconstruct churches.
Nobody was allowed to BECOME Christian.
Actually, Christian communities were allowed like "religious reserves" until they die out.

While the explicit treaties and few rights of Christians were better guaranteed than in Christianity, this explicit rules make it more difficult to change them to standards of post-enlightenment society.

[GePap]

Moreover, Christians didn't so much force to convert either most of the time, actually it was allowed only partially even in the most intolerant periods. Christians had no right to force Jews into conversion and generally they didn't. During the Spanish colonial period there was a theological consense that those Indians could not be forced to convert (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, but again it's easy to find forced conversions in the Ottoman Empire too, but it lacks in both cases a good theological argument) because they were "heathens" who had not yet heard the gospel.

Hmmm....I guess that sort of conventions did not exist in the 9th century when the East of europe was Christianized by the sword.

As for the treatment of others in christianity: were Jews allowed to attempt to convert Christians? were Moslems allowed to come and set up a Mosque in some Christian community? Lets look at what happened tot he largest moslem community to come under Christian rule prior to the Enlgihtenment: they were told, convert or leave. Out of how many Muslim states were Jews kicked out of wholesale? We know Jews were expelled from both britian and Spain, at different times. In fact, for 400 years no jew could make their home in England. Yes, the tolerance of Christianity!

Telling me :"Hey the Muslims in 1600 were not as tolerant as people in post -enlightenment" Europe is no argument, since nobody was that tolerant back then.
Were non-muslims under muslim rule as free as muslims? NO. Yet the fact that Jewish and Christian communities in Muslim lands lasted so long as they did (compared to most non-Christian communities in Chrisendom) surely shows us that all the "horrific" acts against non-Muslim communities did not lead to their destruction.

Face the facts people: Christianity is in no way more inherently "peaceful" than Islam, and the 2000 year long history of Christanity when comapred to the 1400 year hisotry of Islam proves that. That Christian lands today are obviously more tolerant is a result of the humanist, universalist movement of the Enlightenment, and not due to some less bloody bit inherent in these different Monothest traditions.

[Sirotnikov]

muxec - ya negovoril shto ti kovoto materil. Ya prosto govoryu shto ya ne ponyal shto znachit shto tvoya desvushka pushistaya.

eto povidimomu ruski slang kotorovo ya ne ponimayu

[Ben Kenobi]

Too bad I missed this thread, eh?

Case in point.
- Islam includes the OT of the Bible in its teachings.
- Islam therefore worships a god who is clearly responsible for mass murder, and encouraging the Hebrews to conquer (Read "Rape, pillage and slaughter") the Cannites.
- Islam is therefore not a religion of peace.

Archaic:

The point you allude to is in the Canaanite conquest. Now, do you believe that God is justified to punish the wicked? Can God rightly punish those who are wicked with the sword?

Note that God reminds the Israelites that it is not through their own righteousness that they inherit Canaan, it is through the sinfulness of the Canaanites.

Master Zen:

Do we judge a religion by the actions of it's adherents or by the actual teachings? Many have misunderstood passages in the bible and used them for their own sundry purposes. I therefore state that it is unfair to judge a religion merely on its practicioners, but also on what the religion teaches.

Now, by this reasoning does Christianity teach violence? Let's look at key passages in the sermon on the mount as preached by Christ himself.

Matthew 5:38-39

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Also, Matthew 26:51-53

"Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

From these two passages, I conclude that Christianity teaches that peace is to be preferred over violence, as the Christian church will not be formed through the sword, but through the peaceful message of salvation through Christ.

[Zero]

Originally posted by obiwan18

The point you allude to is in the Canaanite conquest. Now, do you believe that God is justified to punish the wicked? Can God rightly punish those who are wicked with the sword?

Note that God reminds the Israelites that it is not through their own righteousness that they inherit Canaan, it is through the sinfulness of the Canaanites.

couldnt u argue the same way for just about all religion?

[Ben Kenobi]

Calc:

Muslims declare Jihad on all 'unbelievers'.

The Israelites were limited to this one instance of outright war sanctioned by God.

God limited the conflict to taking the land, because of the sinfulness, not because of the unbelief of the Canaanites.

The Israelites were instructed and aided by God throughout the conflict. When they trusted in God, they won, and when they stopped trusting, they were soundly defeated.

That's the big difference between the Christian approach and the Muslim approach. Muslims define unbelief as sufficient sin to warrant Jihad, while the Israelites waited until God directed them to take Canaan. Muslims fight according to their own desires, and then cite God's sanction when they win, while the Israelites admit their own failures and breaches of the directions laid out by God.

[Ramo]

Moslems do not declare jihad on all unbelievers. The militaristic connotation of "jihad" is religious self-defense (it primarily refers to an internal moral struggle though). Most major religions have similar concepts; Islam is no different.

Yes, Moslem agressors try to pass their agression off as self-defense as well as theologically justified, but Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., etc. do exactly the same thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo:

The militaristic connotation of "jihad" is religious self-defense (it primarily refers to an internal moral struggle though).

That's not how Muhammad interpreted Jihad. Jihad seemed to apply to anyone who opposed Muslims, regardless of who struck first. Look at my previous example of Muhammad slaughtering the Jews in Medina? Did he not claim divine sanction for these actions?

Yes, Moslem agressors try to pass their agression off as self-defense as well as theologically justified, but Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., etc. do exactly the same thing.

Christians have acknowledged the errors of the past, and no longer preach that the crusades were justified.

What about the Muslims? Have they confessed error in past Jihads?

[Ramo]

That's not how Muhammad interpreted Jihad. Jihad seemed to apply to anyone who opposed Muslims, regardless of who struck first. Look at my previous example of Muhammad slaughtering the Jews in Medina? Did he not claim divine sanction for these actions?

You are wrong. The Qur'an makes it very clear that agression is never justified.

In the case of Mohammed slaughtering Jews in Medina, he did slaughter one of the Jewish tribes (which happened to be the largest one) in Medina. But this tribe renegged on their alliance with the other tribes in Medina and aided the Meccans in their siege. So he executed the men of this tribe and enslaved the women and children. Now, I wouldn't consider this justified behavior by any means, but he didn't kill them just because they were Jews. And these actions weren't divinely sanctioned; they were ordered by Mohammed in the capacity of a political leader, not Mohammed in the capacity of a prophet to Allah.

Christians have acknowledged the errors of the past, and no longer preach that the crusades were justified.
What about the Muslims? Have they confessed error in past Jihads?

You speak of Moslems as if they were some kind of a homogenous group. As I wrote earlier, in the Arabic world, Islamism thrives to a large extent, but where most Moslems live, in South and Southeast Asia, secularism dominates.

And again, "Jihad" isn't an equivalent concept to the Crusades. Jihad basically amounts to morally justified war. So, no one will tell you that a morally justified war is not morally justified. War is almost invariably rationalized through morality. In religious societies, war is rationalized by authority through religious morality. Christian, Moslem, Hindu, it doesn't matter.

[monkspider]

Like I said earlier, Islam is one of the more unenlightened religions out there. Aside from the Muhammed/Jihad aspect that many here have discussed, from my studies, much of Islam seems to built around forcing it's followers into total submission. It could be argued that most religions do this, but I think it is most salient in Islam. But if you can overlook these aspects of it, and it is the religion that brings you closest to God, then that is wonderful.

That said, I have always found it strange that my liberal friends find Islam to be almost beyond reproach, while at the same time, being very hard on Christianity, a religion whose founder espoused pacifism and socialism. I understand Islam is sort of the underdog in the western world right now, and I do totally sympathize if that is why they are somewhat defensive about it. But the situation just always struck me as rather ironic, no hard feelings of course.

[Ben Kenobi]

they were ordered by Mohammed in the capacity of a political leader, not Mohammed in the capacity of a prophet to Allah.

How can you tell the two roles apart?
At least Christ was clear which role he played.

You speak of Moslems as if they were some kind of a homogenous group.

Good catch. There are definitely peaceful Muslims. If you go this route, we need to define what makes a Muslim? The teachings of the Q'uran?

And again, "Jihad" isn't an equivalent concept to the Crusades. Jihad basically amounts to morally justified war. So, no one will tell you that a morally justified war is not morally justified.

Not getting you here, Ramo. If Jihad = morally justified war, by what standard are you justifing Jihad. Surely not all the wars labelled Jihad are justified.

[Ramo]

How can you tell the two roles apart?

If Mohammed says Allah told him to do something, he acted in the capacity of a prophet.

Good catch. There are definitely peaceful Muslims. If you go this route, we need to define what makes a Muslim? The teachings of the Q'uran?

Sure.

Not getting you here, Ramo. If Jihad = morally justified war, by what standard are you justifing Jihad.

According to the Qur'an, justification relies on a war being in self-defense.

Surely not all the wars labelled Jihad are justified.

If I say something is justified, doesn't make it justified according to you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo:

If Mohammed says Allah told him to do something, he acted in the capacity of a prophet.

What about the caravan raids?

According to the Qur'an, justification relies on a war being in self-defense.

The only question lies in what counts as 'self-defense?'
An old trick used to sanction many aggressive wars, is to accentuate the threat of an enemy grossly disproportionate to their actual threat.

RE the analogy with Jihad = Crusades:

You confirmed my position.

Assume a justified war retaliates in self-defense.
Not all Jihads, as declared by the Muslim authorities have been in self-defense.

Therefore, all declared Jihads cannot be justified wars. These unjustified Jihads are in the same realm as the Crusades.

[Ramo]

What about the caravan raids?

He acted in the capacity of a man, not a prophet (he specifically told his men that when they were discussing the strategy before the battle). I'm referring to the caravan raid near Badr, BTW. I'm not aware of any other prominent caravan raids by Mohammed.

The only question lies in what counts as 'self-defense?'

That's exactly my point. What is self-defense to me may not be self-defense to you. Therefore, what I call a Jihad may not be what you call a Jihad.

Therefore, all declared Jihads cannot be justified wars. These unjustified Jihads are in the same realm as the Crusades.

The Crusades were something else entirely. Well, the first one was anyways, where the populations of Jeruselum and a few other cities were basically exterminated. The other ones were too much military failure to do much damage to the people in the region.

But again, you're missing my point. If I call something a Jihad, doesn't make it a Jihad according to you.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Muslims spread their political control by the sword, but did they force anyone to convert? "

Even if they weren't trying to forcefully convert people(even if they bribed others to do so), it was(and is some would argue) still part of Islamic theology to see infidel lands put under Islamic government, and to make war on those who resist.

[Ramo]

That isn't part of Islamic theology (at least, not according to the Qur'an).

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Ramo
That isn't part of Islamic theology (at least, not according to the Qur'an).

See my earlier post.

[Ramo]

As Boshko pointed out, the quotes had specific contexts with the tribes Mohammed was fighting (again, in self-defense). It wasn't a general call to wage war on infidels.

[Sirotnikov]

muxec - nu chto zhe ti imel v'vidu kogda skazal shto devka tvoya pushistoya? ya do sih por ne znayu

[Daz]

Geee gals and guys. I didnt know Israel was a former CCCP state....

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmmm....I guess that sort of conventions did not exist in the 9th century when the East of europe was Christianized by the sword.

I think I made clear that I don't defend anyone, less I'm the apologet of a religion where people thought it's great to storm and plunder pagan temples and burn incredibly important knowledge... And I've never said that Christianity has not been spread by the sword or at least with the sword in the backhand.
One of the biggest flaws in Christianity is its incopmplete seperation from the OT because on a theological level one had to dig in Exodus to possibly justify violent actions against nonbelievers.

As for the treatment of others in christianity: were Jews allowed to attempt to convert Christians? were Moslems allowed to come and set up a Mosque in some Christian community? Lets look at what happened tot he largest moslem community to come under Christian rule prior to the Enlgihtenment: they were told, convert or leave. Out of how many Muslim states were Jews kicked out of wholesale? We know Jews were expelled from both britian and Spain, at different times. In fact, for 400 years no jew could make their home in England. Yes, the tolerance of Christianity!

Hell, why do you stick to attacking Christianity in a thread about the question of how peaceful Islam is? I join you in this in a thread on the intolerance of Christianity. I'm an agnostic!
Always, when talking about Islam there's the "but the Christians did worse things, nananananana"- argument. But if you wish to know exactly: Muhammad himself told the Jewish tribe of the Quraisha: "Convert, leave or die." OF COURSE, those jews previously broke a treaty...
Or Koran, Sure 9, vers 5 (Word of God): "Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (Polytheists) 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-Salât (convert) and give Zakât (pay muslim taxes), then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Were non-muslims under muslim rule as free as muslims? NO. Yet the fact that Jewish and Christian communities in Muslim lands lasted so long as they did (compared to most non-Christian communities in Chrisendom) surely shows us that all the "horrific" acts against non-Muslim communities did not lead to their destruction.

As I've said, Christians and Jews were somehow privileged, even the Zoroastrians, although this religion surely didn't almost completely die out only because Islam was so convincing.

That Christian lands today are obviously more tolerant is a result of the humanist, universalist movement of the Enlightenment, and not due to some less bloody bit inherent in these different Monothest traditions.

I agree with you, the humanisation did not flow out of the religion itself. yet I still stand to my opinion that Christianity could more easily adapt to that change since the founder of this religion never decidedly said a word on how the society should work, so the range of interpretations is much bigger. A theological embracement of humanistic values by Islam is much more difficult if not impossible, because it would contradict the very word of God and the prophet, who is only partially to blame because he lived in the 7th century in nasty times and he was a political person. The fact remains that all those nasty little details about the treatment even of the more "privileged" ahl al-kitab are still not questioned the least in the muslim theological argument. The "Dimma", how this system of "coexistance" is called is still seen as a "shining example of tolerance and peaceful coexistance" in history and perfectly applicable today.

[Wernazuma III]

Oh, I forgot Sura 9,29 - the center and heart of the dimma:

"Fight against those who believe not in Allâh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah(head tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

[GePap]

Wernazuma III:

The fact remains that all those nasty little details about the treatment even of the more "privileged" ahl al-kitab are still not questioned the least in the muslim theological argument. The "Dimma", how this system of "coexistance" is called is still seen as a "shining example of tolerance and peaceful coexistance" in history and perfectly applicable today.

As I mentioned in OmarKhattab's thread, what I view as the greatest problem in Islam today is that the theological discussion has say frozen for several centuries now.

My point is that Islam is not inherently a violent religion, as far as its treatment of non-believers is concerned. The thing is Mohammed did concern himslef with the expansion of islam, while christ did not, as he never assumed a p;olitical role, and hence all the politics were left to someone else, and the ancient Jews enver meant their religion to be universal, so what do they care for unbelivers as long as they stay elsewhere?

The reason i state what i do is not form reading the texts, but from how those that did read the text interpreted them and put them into practice. Obiwan keeps pointing out all the passages Mohammed puts in, and yet most Muslim rulers did not interpret them as harshly as he does, given their behavior. I think it is possible to move beyond most of the small details of the books to a more concise spiritual message, but to do so the islamic scholarship has to start again and incorporate the lessons fot eh alst 600 years.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by GePap
My point is that Islam is not inherently a violent religion, as far as its treatment of non-believers is concerned.

Well, sura 9 and 5 (in chronological order) and other parts in the Quran tell me something different, just like many Hadith (words of the prophet). But I agree, there are some other hadith that say something different ("What you do to one of the Dimmi you do to me")
With such commands, muslims were ordered to respect the treaty, yet the treaty itself, well, I've already pointed out.
Furthermore, again, polytheists can't reach even the Dhimma in most variants of Islam safe the Hanafite Sunnites (still a large group), based on the very repulsive statements and almost total war Muhammad prays against them.
His words CAN be interpreted differently, but the violent language used is more than a small indication that the religion here has an inherently violent element.

The thing is Mohammed did concern himslef with the expansion of islam, while christ did not, as he never assumed a p;olitical role, and hence all the politics were left to someone else, and the ancient Jews enver meant their religion to be universal, so what do they care for unbelivers as long as they stay elsewhere?

Right, as long as I don't care for expansion of the faith I generally remain more peaceful towards them. Jews found other ways to be less than peaceful in other ways and Christianity obviously often wasn't able to perform their gospel-preching duty without violence and found enough biblical justification for it, but it's on another leaf. Expansion of Islam from Muhammad on was not something tied to "preaching" or "telling the word of God" but by aggressive political expansion

The reason i state what i do is not form reading the texts, but from how those that did read the text interpreted them and put them into practice.

Ah, now we move closer to the center of our problem. I also often tend to say "there's no religion beside how it's practiced" but that means disregarding the very nature of religion. What I tried was getting to the fundaments of religion itself and that's what we got to do, especially when talking with religious persons. Of course, Islam is different in many parts of the world and throughout history. In my theory, all major religions must be so vague and open to interpretation that they manage to give people an explanation of their world in a great variety of living conditions or they vanish.
But if a muslim claims that his religion is peaceful, he must give me a theological reason how he combines his religion with peace on the grounds of religious texts, not by pointing out "practized tolerance" in history as compared to that in Christian societies. If tolerance was practiced in Islamic societies, it doesn't necessarily mean that Islam was the force behind it. Actually I've found out that it was always religious figures who argued AGAINST the tolerance in the Sultanate of Delhi or in Spain because it clearly contradicted several orders of the prophet - and theologically they had a point. Muhammad forbid taking jews and Christians as friends and called the jews the "worst enemies of the true faith who use to kill prophets, are not trustworthy etc." - period.
It's violent language and there's little theologically doubtful in the preachings of fundamentalists either - safe the killing of women, children and old maybe.

I think it is possible to move beyond most of the small details of the books to a more concise spiritual message, but to do so the islamic scholarship has to start again and incorporate the lessons fot eh alst 600 years.

So do I, and I said that there are a few thinkers who attempt that, yet they're menaced and marginalized and from a theological point they have to be very skillful at evading the many aggressive parts without throwing them in the trash can (what you frankly can't do, otherwise you really pervert the religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wernazuma:

why do you stick to attacking Christianity in a thread about the question of how peaceful Islam is?

Bravo

My point is that Islam is not inherently a violent religion, as far as its treatment of non-believers is concerned.

I'm not so sure about this seperation. I do believe that Islam teaches that it is okay to forcibly convert unbelievers to Islam. Go to an Islamic country and find a convert from Islam to Christianity, these people will be very much persecuted by their former family. Religious tolerance is hard to come by.

WRT Wernazuma's point on the origins of religious freedoms within the west, you may be surprised that the first country to have any laws allowing for Religious freedoms was Prussia under Frederick the Great, a suspected atheist.

[JCG]

I guess what makes Islam "less" of a religion of peace is the very questionable/contradictory content in some of the Hadith/Sunna, which were written much later than the Quran, after their Prophet was dead, AFAIK...

For example, on another forum, some Muslims were using tons of quotes from those to "justify" terrorism/suicide bombing/killing of innocents and a lot of equally violent/unpeaceful stuff...

[Ramo]

Go to an Islamic country and find a convert from Islam to Christianity, these people will be very much persecuted by their former family. Religious tolerance is hard to come by.

I'm an atheist, and most of my overwhelmingly Islamic family doesn't hold anything against me (or my sister who's also an atheist, for that matter).

I know many, many very tolerant Moslems. I really don't know where y'all are coming up with this... There's absolutely nothing inherently violent about Moslems. At least, no more so than there's anything inherently violent about Christians.

WRT Wernazuma's point on the origins of religious freedoms within the west, you may be surprised that the first country to have any laws allowing for Religious freedoms was Prussia under Frederick the Great, a suspected atheist.

Freddy was a fan of Voltaire.

The thing is Mohammed did concern himslef with the expansion of islam, while christ did not, as he never assumed a p;olitical role, and hence all the politics were left to someone else, and the ancient Jews enver meant their religion to be universal, so what do they care for unbelivers as long as they stay elsewhere?

But Mohammed didn't assume a political role in a religious capacity. He was Caliph as a man, not a prophet. Political expansion doesn't imply forcing people to convert by the sword. Hell, conversion was even discouraged later on to maximize tax collection.

Well, sura 9 and 5 (in chronological order) and other parts in the Quran tell me something different, [...]

I think you're missing that there are lots of contextual issues with what you're writing. In the Qur'an, for the most part, the parts about killing people, etc. are tied to specific conflicts and specific circumstances.