jump to last post 1-50 of 54 discussions (559 posts)

Islam, is it a violent religion?

  1. thirdmillenium profile image71
    thirdmilleniumposted 4 years ago

    Does Islam contain some doctrines that make it mandatory for all Muslims to kill/destroy/annihilate followers of other religions/atheists/agnostics?

    Some say it does. Some others say it  was not originally in the text but had been stealthily  inserted later by religious fanatics.

    1. kirstenblog profile image76
      kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe it wasn't intended to be violent (and indeed many muslim people are NOT violent people but are peaceful and lovely) but as you say, calls to violence has managed to make its way into the text somehow. Religion is like the swiss army knife of social tools, it can be used as a call to war or peace, a call for love or a call for hate. Not sure any God would inspire any of these easily corrupted religions.....

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, MOST people who follow Islam are peaceful.

        1. kirstenblog profile image76
          kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So far all the muslim people I have met have been peaceful if not down right nice. I guess like christians, the text for violence is there but for the most part it's dismissed in favour of the bits that are more helpful to them.

    2. Rohingya profile image61
      Rohingyaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Islam doesn't contain any doctrine that make it mandatory for all Muslims to kill/destroy/annihilate followers of other religions/atheists/agnostics.
      Have u went to aboutjihad site, It's good in explaining the situation.
      "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors." [Noble Quran 2:190]
      "And those who, when great wrong is done to them, defend themselves." [Noble Quran 42:39]

      1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
        ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Jazak Allah...

      2. Sadaf99 profile image43
        Sadaf99posted 10 months ago in reply to this

        smile thanks.

    3. God made science profile image60
      God made scienceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Did George Bush teach the soldiers to kill Iraqi civilians?

    4. God made science profile image60
      God made scienceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't start a dispute over here. All religions are good, and don't intentionally accuse a certain religion over thousands other religions that exist. Your wasting time here fella!

    5. marwan asmar profile image79
      marwan asmarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think I like the way the question has been worded. It seems to me today there is a deliberate attack on Islam as a religion without properly examining its true context. Islam today is continually stereotyped as a "violent" religion without effective examination of the text....where is the western concept of fairness when judging the religion...what about the versus that street the moral aspects ethical conduct, peace, charity and goodwill. Quite frequently there are innuendos, judgments and implications when talking about Islam, standing out as the bogey religion.

      1. God made science profile image60
        God made scienceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It maybe a prejudice.

    6. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Nothing needs to be inserted because unless a text is extremely prescriptive (and this goes for the Bible too) then simply re-interpreting or redefining things is enough to make it mean whatever you want. For example, there is no call to violence in the Quran except for self defense. If an Islamic political leader wanted to justify and encourage violence against his political enemies, all he has to do is frame that violence as a form of self-defense. So he can say something like (illustration only, not my personal view): "American cultural values are a direct attack on the values of Islam". By doing so, he is characterising violence against America and American culture as self-defense, therefore making it permissible according to the Quran. No need to add anything to the Quran. Some slight of hand is more than enough.

      The secular equivalent to this would be suggesting that a country is in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction as a pretext for for attacking that country. By doing so the leader of a secular country can make violence against another country seem like an act of self defense and therefore justifiable according to the secular norms of that country.

      The only difference between these two is that one takes advantage of religious belief and the other takes advantage of a free but docile mass media. Both these actions are political, and both are forms of controlling a populace.

      Human beings have a unique talent for justifying when we want to kill/destroy/annihilate "others". I believe this is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. Politics, religion etc. are just the mechanism by which this aspect of human nature is played out. The sad truths is that human beings are capable of killing each other over anything, and do.

      1. C.V.Rajan profile image68
        C.V.Rajanposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Don W,

        Beautiful reply. Hats off to you.

        C.V.

    7. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      -



      A Christian martyr is a person who is killed for following Christianity,through stoning, crucifixion, burning at the stake or other forms of torture and capital punishment. The word "martyr" comes from the Greek word μάρτυς, mártys, which means "witness."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs


      Shahid or Shaheed (Arabic: شهيد,‎ šahīd, plural: شُهَدَاء šuhadāʾ ) originates from the Qur'anic Arabic word meaning "witness" and is also used to denote a "martyr." It is used as an honorific for Muslims who have died fulfilling a religious commandment, especially those who die wielding jihad, or historically in the military expansion of Islam.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Geez Phoenix, So ISIS is following the Quran?

    8. MonkeyShine75 profile image80
      MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

      It's the fanatics of the religion that causes distrust, not the everyday Muslim who are people just like us

    9. 61
      pakistantodayposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      islam means peace persperity and economic stability, those who using the name of  Islam to kill other is actually those people , who we called western dogs, it America who support Jihad'is for their own benefits. so please do not link what is happing around the world with Islam
      Islam teach us that saving the life of one person is equal to saving the life of all humanity ,

      1. Writer Fox profile image81
        Writer Foxposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        You are wrong about this.  America does not support Jihad and the American government is built on a separation of government and religion.

        Jihad is an Islamic term used many times in the Quran.  According to Wikipedia, "Jihad refers to struggle against those who do not believe in the Islamic god Allah and do not acknowledge the submission to Muslims."  Jihad is often translated as 'holy war' with a military meaning. "Javed Ghamidi states that there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

        In your country, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, horrible examples of 'non-peaceful' Islamists occur every day.  Friday, right after attending prayers in a mosque, Muslims set a child on fire because the child was a Christian.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … stian.html

        On Sunday, March 15, two Islamic suicide bombers blew themselves up inside two churches in Pakistan, killing 17 and wounding 70 Christians. "Thus did the jihadis 'kill and be killed,' in the words of Quran  9:111, the verse most often cited to justify suicide attacks."
        http://humanevents.com/2015/03/24/chris … ani-jihad/

        No, these weren't 'western dogs' or Americans who did these things.  These were Pakistani Muslims killing Pakistani Christians.

        1. dianetrotter profile image82
          dianetrotterposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          What does "Western dogs" mean?  I first heard of the word "jihad" after 9-11.  I have never had a preoccupation with Islam until I heard of the anger of some followers of Islam wanted to kill us.  Every time I see senseless murders of people who have done nothing to deserve it or hear of young girls being raped by ISIS members, I ask God, "Why?"  I pray for the victims and the guilty destroyers of mankind.

        2. 61
          pakistantodayposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          if you do not know the meaning of Jihad then do not comments, i can give you 100 proofs who is these fanatics and who created them , just remember the block against USSR and from where the money coming, and who did support it the  most, and the world jihad meaning , try again for their best, and these fanantices are trying for their worest,

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Let's see your 100 proofs.

            1. 61
              pakistantodayposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

              open your eyes and read it out , its available every where , but do not where are you sleeping

              1. dianetrotter profile image82
                dianetrotterposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                I think it depends on processing what you are reading based on information you already have.  I expected to see itemized 1 through 100.

                Is it possible for you to pick 5 reasons and explain them to us.

                Thank you!

        3. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          I think you would know better what jihad was. Why do you manipulate it in such a way which makes it sound like we have no goals in life but to kill innocent people. Just incase i am wrong in assuming you would know better, the following is all you need to know about Jihaad.

          The literal meaning of Jihad is struggle or effort, and it means much more than holy war.

          Muslims use the word Jihad to describe three different kinds of struggle:

          1. A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
          2. The struggle to build a good Muslim society
          3. Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary

          Many modern writers claim that the main meaning of Jihad is the internal spiritual struggle, and this is accepted by many Muslims.

          However there are so many references to Jihad as a military struggle in Islamic writings that it is incorrect to claim that the interpretation of Jihad as holy war is wrong.

          Jihad and the Prophet

          The internal Jihad is the one that Prophet Muhammad is said to have called the greater Jihad.

          But the quotation in which the Prophet says this is regarded as coming from an unreliable source by some scholars. They regard the use of Jihad to mean holy war as the more important.

          The internal Jihad

          The phrase internal Jihad or greater Jihad refers to the efforts of a believer to live their Muslim faith as well as possible.

          All religious people want to live their lives in the way that will please their God. So Muslims make a great effort to live as Allah has instructed them; following the rules of the faith, being devoted to Allah, doing everything they can to help other people.

          For most people, living God's way is quite a struggle. God sets high standards, and believers have to fight with their own selfish desires to live up to them, no matter how much they love God.

          The five Pillars of Islam as Jihad

          The five Pillars of Islam form an exercise of Jihad in this sense, since a Muslim gets closer to Allah by performing them.

          Other ways in which a Muslim engages in the 'greater Jihad' could include:

          1. Learning the Qur'an by heart, or engage in other religious study.
          2. Overcoming things such as anger, greed, hatred, pride, or malice.
          3. Giving up smoking.
          4. Cleaning the floor of the mosque.
          5. Taking part in Muslim community activities.
          6. Working for social justice.
          7. Forgiving someone who has hurt them.

          The Greater Jihad controversy

          The Prophet is said to have called the internal Jihad the "greater Jihad".

          On his return from a battle, the Prophet said: "We are finished with the lesser jihad; now we are starting the greater jihad." He explained to his followers that fighting against an outer enemy is the lesser jihad and fighting against one's self is the greater jihad (holy war).

          This quotation is regarded as unreliable by some scholars. They regard the use of jihad as meaning 'holy war' as the more important.

          However the quotation has been very influential among some Muslims, particularly Sufis.

          Holy war

          When Muslims, or their faith or territory are under attack, Islam permits (some say directs) the believer to wage military war to protect them.

          However Islamic (shariah) law sets very strict rules for the conduct of such a war.In recent years the most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War. And there is a long tradition of Jihad being used to mean a military struggle to benefit Islam.

          What can justify Jihad?

          There are a number of reasons, but the Qur'an is clear that self-defence is always the underlying cause.Permissable reasons for military Jihad:

          1. Self-defence
          2. Strengthening Islam
          3. Protecting the freedom of Muslims to practise their faith
          4. Protecting Muslims against oppression, which could include overthrowing a tyrannical ruler
          5. Punishing an enemy who breaks an oath
          6. Putting right a wrong

          What a Jihad is not

          A war is not a Jihad if the intention is to:

          1. Force people to convert to Islam
          2. Conquer other nations to colonise them
          3. Take territory for economic gain
          4. Settle disputes
          5. Demonstrate a leader's power

          Although the Prophet engaged in military action on a number of occasions, these were battles to survive, rather than conquest, and took place at a time when fighting between tribes was common.

          The rules of Jihad

          A military Jihad has to obey very strict rules in order to be legitimate.

          1. The opponent must always have started the fighting.
          2. It must not be fought to gain territory.
          3. It must be launched by a religious leader.
          4. It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of.
          5. Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war.
          6. Innocent people should not be killed.
          7. Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt.
          8. Women must not be raped.
          9. Enemies must be treated with justice.
          10. Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers.
          11. The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace.
          12. Property must not be damaged.
          13. Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare.

          The Qur'an on Jihad

          The Qur'an has many passages about fighting. Some of them advocate peace, while some are very warlike. The Bible, the Jewish and Christian scripture, shows a similar variety of attitudes to war.

          Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
          Qur'an 2:190
          To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.
          Qur'an 22:39
          Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
          Qur'an 4:90
          But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
          Qur'an 8:61

          ~Source : BBC Islam>Jihaad.

          After going through the rules of Jihaad, you may note how ridiculous your statements sound to us when a Christian or Hindu is killed in Pakistan and you say it's because of Jihaad. Jihaad in the sense of Holy war is not applicable isolated incidences. I hope you can grasp this idea and hold on to it for any future discussions.

          If you want me to start posting links of incidences where Muslims have been killed just because they are Muslims then let me know. I'm sure I could come up with a little more than 3 incidences you posted.

          The shia / sunni fights you talk about in Pakistan are funded mainly by Saudi and Iran. You must note that Pakistan houses the second largest shia community where 1 in 5 people are shia. they are our brothers and sisters in Islam even though we have our differences in a few things. The major cause of all the bombings are not because of religion. It is because of poverty. A man who wants to feed his wife and children takes as little as $30 to wear a suicide jacket and a promise that his family will be looked after. His reason is not Jihaad. His reason is not Islam. His reason is poverty and poverty alone. The only way to end all these disgusting bombings in Pakistan is to bring people out of poverty and provide everyone with education (both girls and boys). It is a huge task but it is a matter of urgency for us and should be on the priority list.  Sadly our leaders don't care enough about this and today "Pakistan has some of the worst education indicators globally"(UNESCO).

          1. Writer Fox profile image81
            Writer Foxposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            I encourage you to watch this video which was produced by a Muslim.  I think he explains very well what jihad is.  It's over an hour long, but well worth your time to learn something.  After you have watched it, perhaps you can explain about the 12-year-old child in Pakistan beheading a traitor for the Taliban in the video.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XUub1no1qw

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              I know what Jihad is. For all I know an Israelite could have made the video. It could be thought of as something similar to Simon Elliot (Elliot Shimon) aka Al-Baghdadi (leader of ISIS) who happens to be a Mossad agent. Looks like Isreal is a greater devil than we all thought. Defame Islam and kill Muslims, create havoc everywhere and blame it all on Islam and Muslims. Good plan, see you on the day of judgement.

              Did you not read the rules of jihad I put up... any captives are to be treated like your own soldiers. What they did was wrong. Killing them is not part of it. brainwashing is not a part of Islam.

              1. Writer Fox profile image81
                Writer Foxposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                No, an Israeli did not make that video and Al-Baghdadi is not a Mossad agent.
                       
                I am really surprised at your willingness to believe every lie issued from Iran.

                Do you also subscribe to the latest theory from Bakistan that the earth is flat and it is connected to moon from the other side?

                Your comment displays complete gullibility and, in your part of the world that is dangerous since ISIS is now in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Have you not heard the analysis "As Afghanistan goes, so goes Pakistan?"

                That video that you are so afraid to view was made by Dr. Jasser, a practicing physician in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology in Phoenix, Arizona.  He is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). He is an expert on radical Islam and, unlike you, doesn't bury his head in the sand to the ideology and theology of jihadism. Unlike you, he doesn't blame Israel for all of his problems or for the problems of Islam or for the problems of jihadists and he doesn't subscribe to wacko conspiracy theories. Also, unlike you, Dr. Jasser is brave enough to publicly confront jihadism as a Muslim instead of pretending that it does not exist. 

                The day of judgment for Pakistan is coming sooner than you imagine and I know of no nation who will help Pakistan in that day. You will lose that war just like you lost Bangladesh.

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  I included Israel to the conversation on purpose to prove a point. The point being we have talked and learnt from each other and after understanding each others points if we spring back and start accusing each other like you are constantly doing by repeating single incidences in Pakistan and blaming it on religion then we are not making progress. I can throw many links at you and I'm sure you can do the same, but it doesn't get us anywhere in the end.

                  If you feel the minority do not have rights in Pakistan then let me assure you that the minority do not have rights either. I have been stopped at night by the police and almost bullied into giving them money otherwise I would go to jail. When my sister had her purse snatched at gunpoint the police did not file a report. I've heard many people accuse the Pakistan not to look after the minorities, but they don't realize that their majorities do not have many rights either. Sure there is a lot more freedom here than the people in the west would think but there are some huge flaws with our justice system, which affects both majorities and minorities.

                  I'm not afraid of any video. I did not say jihadism does not exist. I have seen reports and videos of how they get the kids then brainwash them as well as the exact quotes of the Quran used to brainwash the kids. Why do you think I keep stressing on education? It is the lack of education which is allowing this brainwashing to occur in the young and the old.

                  As I've said before, I am not bothered about them entering Pakistan. If the day of judgement comes early for us then so be it. smile

      2. arksys profile image91
        arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        my brother/sister, a little reminder for you.

        Please do not call them "western dogs". It is disrespectful and not right. You need to control your anger before you speak. Sure it gets hard sometimes, but try harder.

        "The servants of the Rahman (the All-Merciful, Allah) are those who walk on the earth humbly, and when the ignorant people speak to them, they reply peacefully"
        Al-Furqan [25:63]

        1. BuddiNsense profile image61
          BuddiNsenseposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          Don't discourage him, he is only trying to prove the OP right!

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            lol ... there is a lot of anger on both sides. Calling someone a dog is rude but I would not call it violent. The least I can do is guide a fellow Muslim where I see him go against the teachings.

            I've been on youtube recently and my oh my there are some really rude people out there against Muslims and the insults they dish out are not easy to tolerate. I found a guy who claims to be a prophet of Islam too... weird, crazy and amazing things have happened on youtube while I was gone. It has made me realize that the people on hub pages really are an entirely different tribe and I'm grateful to know each and every one of you, regardless of our differences in opinion and religious beliefs. I have learned a lot here.

            1. dianetrotter profile image82
              dianetrotterposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              Thanks arksys!

            2. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              Agree with most of what you say Probably the feeling you got is the same one a Jew or Christian get when your people claim that they tampered with their holy scripture and your prophet is the true one from their god.

              1. arksys profile image91
                arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                No, there wasn't any tampering, in the 3-minute videos, his messages were of peace and love and all the good stuff ... I did point out the contradiction that he believes in Muhammad but does not believe that he was the last prophet, and from the looks of things he was just seeking attention and respect and asking for it in the videos too...  smile

                1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                  BuddiNsenseposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  I didn't say he was tampering, what I said was about the claim by Muslims that Christians and Jews tampered their scripture to omit parts about Muhammad.

                  A Christian at the time of your prophet would have said the same and Jews certainly said the same about Jesus (according to bible).

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes, that is probably what they believed. however, as far as I know they both were not told that their prophets were the last of the messengers. The kind of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) who was a Christian did help the Muslims and some sources say he did convert to Islam after a while.

    10. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
      Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

      Both the off shoots of Judaism are potentially dangerous because they are exclusionary and have the doctrine of spreading to 'save" everyone. They also believe they are the only correct religion. That makes it possible for the religion, through its authorities, to mandate what people believe when ever they gain power.

      The Christians were very dangerous in the days they had power. The inquisitions, war in the "holy land" (crusades) 300 plus years of war between Catholics and Protestants, each burning the others people for heresy every chance they got.

      There are also two basic types of Muslim. They are constantly at war with each other or oppressing each other when they are a majority. That's why we are seeing Muslims attempting to.create Muslim states. With power they can enforce their one and only true belief.

      After all, god doesn't like heretics teaching lies. And, no one wants their kids or their true belief to be corrupted by non believers, infidels, or heretics. Gotta keep it pure. 

      So inherently any belief that says its the right and only way is dangerous to those who disagree. It's not just religion but any such belief system that comes to power.

      That's why there has to be a strong separation between church and state. If any Christian denomination gets into power it's hell for the rest of Christianity, and the rest of us. Same goes for Islam. No difference.

      1. arksys profile image91
        arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        I agree with you here ... they would certainly make life very difficult for the Muslims who want to live a balanced life (this world and the next). I do not see them as balanced people therefore they would definitely make it hell for the rest of us. Their rules are more strict now as compared to the time of our prophet.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
          Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          That's why moderate Christians, Muslims people from other religions and atheists have to stick together to fight fundamentalism no matter where it comes from. Only with a strong separation of church and state can we all live together in peace.

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            At the moment, I would have to agree to separate the church from the state. We cannot have lunatics running the show.

    11. 68
      paarsurreyposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      No, Islam is a very peaceful religion.
      Muhammad fought only defensive battles with the Meccans who were out to attack Muhammad and his followers. They had to defend for co-existence. Please
      There is no verse in Quran to kill non-believers in general terms. Please
      Regards

  2. G Miah profile image82
    G Miahposted 4 years ago

    There is no call to ciolence in the Quran except when one has to defend oneself. For example defend against opression, taking over of land etc. I'm sure as humans we wouldn't let things like that happen.

    The Quran has always been the same since it was revealed over 1400 years ago. No one has or can put in new verses or chapters into the Quran, as Allah said that even if all the humans and jinns on earth they cannot write one verse similar to the Quran, and many people have tried and failed.

    Islam is not a violent religion, but by taking verses out of context, it has been labelled as violent.

    Islam means to submit yourself to the will of Allah, and that's what practicing Muslims do. You will find in every religion violent people and wrongdoers even if they are practicing. Just look at the Christian Crusades.

    If the message was in the Quran to kill any non Muslims at any opportunity, there would be Muslims killing people everywhere all over the world.

    Jihad means to 'strive' to improve ones self first, and most Muslims fail at this first step.

    In conclusion, Islam does not teach people to be violent, agressive, thieving, opressing or any bad things. Islam teaches to be kind to it's neighbours whatever their religion, be good in the community they live in etc. In the Quran it says to kill one innocent human is like killing the whole human race, and saving one human life is like saving that of the whole human race.

    (To find out the real answers please go to http://www.linkstoislam.com/ where you will find all the answers you are looking for. This site is run by real Muslims, not by non Muslims)

    1. thooghun profile image86
      thooghunposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are over 109 direct calls for violence in the Quran such as this:

      "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah"

      P.S: Let's not forget the Hadith.

      1. G Miah profile image82
        G Miahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sometimes you have to read and understand the whole chapter or verse to understand the context of the message.

        People are always ready to point a finger at Islam to make it look bad. People do not want to understand Islam fully. That's just the way it is nowadays.

        Maybe it doesn't look good from the outside, but being a Muslim myself, i know what it is from the inside.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Baloney. Context and circumstance are just lame excuses.



          Or, maybe we see and understand the effects Islam has on it's followers and how they behave as a result.

          1. G Miah profile image82
            G Miahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            All will be clear soon...

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's all clear now. smile

    2. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Therein lies the problem. It is the perception and decision making process of how Muslims come to their conclusions as to when to defend themselves, often making critical errors in their judgments turning a defensive position into an offensive position.



      Context and circumstance are the foremost excuses used by Muslims when attempting defend the violent verses in the Quran or Hadiths.



      Most scriptures contain many verses that contradict each other, Islam is no different. In one verse it will call for violence against others while another verse states something entirely different.

      1. arksys profile image91
        arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        don't you think the contradiction lies because you are not reading in context?

        Context is not an excuse ... there are many stories in the Quran which are for a particular time ... those do not apply right now. what makes you think its an excuse?

        why does a judge send a muderer to an mental facility rather than to jail? because he noted the context ... i.e. everything related to the murder which showed the person had a mental problem... i hope you get what i'm trying to say. context is important.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why don't those stories apply? What would be the point of having them, then? Explain.



          Sorry, but your example has nothing to do with context.

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It teaches you about the past in some chapters ... about our previous prophets and what they were taught and how people reacted to it ... they would not apply today because we are not in similar circumstances. Muslims were a small minority in those days and the threat to the religion was much higher ... today we are the second largest religion in the world, there is no threat to the religion itself even if a whole country full of muslims is wiped out.
            The times have changed ... this is why it does not apply today and no one is threatening to wipe out islam.

            can you give me an example of context if mine is wrong? maybe i can learn something new from you.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So what? Muslims will still use those words to support Islam, yet discount them with excuses of context and translation when the same words are used in showing contradictions. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.



              The religion was the threat, not the other way round.



              Here are just a few of over a hundred verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.

              Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...

              Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it.

              Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

              1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
                ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Troubled Man-- I can explain the above references but first I will bring your attention to a basic misunderstanding about violence. Lets believe the modern concept that violence in all forms is bad. Then comes a question that then "why the atheist governments decide to keep the armies whose job is to kill". Or lets put it like this that nuclear arms are bad -- but then why is there no effort to totally ban the nukes in this world. So, you see a huge double standard here such that what is good for us is bad for you. I don't blame them as the right to self defense is a legitimate right.  I think this is also accepted by the UN charter as the right to defend also the freedom fighting.

                It is very childish to blame it on Islam and Quran while doing the same thing.  All military schools teach what Quran has said in above verses but at the same time Quran also gives us a rule-- "that do not do injustice by attacking any nation for looting/ natural resources etc., only attacked if you are attacked or you find your fellow people being persecuted there and do not go beyond an equal reaction.  Unfortunately in most countries, the reason to fight is that the President says so and the soldier has no right to make an objection or else he/she is court martialed.  There is no court martial in islam and it gives right to even the lowest ranking soldier to make an objection.

                There is no example elsewhere except Islamic history--of common man asking the King about how he made his shirt when the cloth distributed among all the people was not enough to make a shirt. And the King Umar Farooq, had to bring his son as witness who told the people that he gave his share of cloth to his King father and he has no piece of cloth now.  This was the justice that Islam brought and let me tell you that Mohammad PBUH said that " The system of infidels can survive, but the system of injustice cannot survive".  So, Islam was against injustice and not infidels. This is all history of Islam very well recorded and perhaps this is how you may know why Islam kept on spreading despite losing wars.  Perhaps this is the reason why it is so hard to convince a Muslim to consider his religion as bad.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no misunderstanding regarding violence, it is easily understandable.



                  Atheist governments? lol



                  That's all irrelevant nonsense, you didn't explain anything. All you did was attempt to justify violence for alleged and/or fabricated persecution.

                  1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
                    ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Troubled Man-- Nations were attacked and destroyed for their alleged involvement-- even statements like "if you are not with us, that means you are with the enemy'" came up from world leaders---at least Islam talks about a revenge that is limited to the damage on your side. This is called 'Rules of Engagement' in Islam. Which is one of the things that very much impressed me.

              2. arksys profile image91
                arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...

                this was when muslims were driven out of mecca. if they are driven out of mecca again ... then this will apply to all Muslims today. i hope you can maybe now understand why we say it doesn't apply today.

                you did not give me an example of context.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You just contradicted yourself.

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    simply put... muslims are in mecca today therefore it does not apply to us today.

                    still waiting for context example.

                2. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow - driving Muslims out of Mecca is worse than slaughtering non-believers? sad

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    i just noted the "clever" addition in brackets ....

                    "for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. "

                    persecution is worse than slaughter ... meaning persecution of the non-believers is worse for them than being slaughtered.

    3. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      You must admit this conflicts with Christianity as may be expected.  Even when Peter tried to defend Jesus, Jesus told him to put down his sword.   He said, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

      I think violence begets violence.  However, I would say if someone is threatening your life then it is justifiable to defend oneself even with lethal force. 

      The Jews were heavily oppressed by the Romans yet Jesus never incited violence against the Romans.  Was He being weak?

      If Christianity is a religion of peace, then what is Islam?

      I do respect many Muslims but their text reminds me a lot of the Old Testament.

  3. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    Let's contact the family of the young girl with Downe's Syndrome who is awaiting execution in Pakistan. They could probably clue us in on Islam's policies on violence when it comes to arbitrary determinations on how to react to perceptions of 'attack' on the religion. From where I stand, it looks like a very violent religion.

    1. 61
      maniqposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Islam is a not a violent religion. And keeping in mind 'no one has any right to decide on someone's life'. That poor girl is awaiting execution (hopefully we will see some positive things going on) because of a number of reasons. Alas, the religion is to be blamed at all times. People are either on the far right or far left. The have no or zero knowledge about anything be it there religion. They have never had the curiosity or the need to find out things, to question, to know whats right or wrong based on the religion?!.

      But again, its way much politicized now. Thanks to a number of people and states. Its the thought process I believe and knowledge has a lot to say in it. I don't want to point fingers, or anything. But if you start doing some research on this big stream of internet, perspective can change. Thousands revert to Islam every year, there has to be a reason?!.
      plus, all these wars going on since the last 50 years?! we all know whose responsible yet you wont see anyone saying oh christianity is to blame?!. because religion is not to be blamed for the stupid unhuman act of ours.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Islam, in practice, is a violent religion. It sounds to me as if you are making excuses and attempting to transfer blame. Islamic violence includes beheading non Muslims, honor killings, throwing acid on women and execution without due process of law, by lunch mobs.

        Those are every day occurrences within Islamic nations 'at peace'.  This doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

        1. 61
          maniqposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I dont need to make any excuse. beheading is not islamic, its regional. honor killing, name driven by west. Its mainly stupid rituals and way of life (regional), throwing acid on women (is an individuals act) just like the guy who had her wife chained up for 10 years some where in USA.

          Allah (SWT) clearly mentions in Quran that one who has killed one human has killed the whole humanity. An individual`s act cannot be blamed upon the religion, it is to be blamed upon that particular society he or she is living in.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You may be a peaceful person, have a peaceful interpretation of your holy text and consider violence not in line with Islamic teachings. Unfortunately, not everyone within the religion agrees with you and they see the Quran as mandating the violence they act out.

            It is no different from disagreements over interpretation for the Christians and the Jews. Those acting out violence would argue against any peaceful interpretations also.

          2. twosheds1 profile image60
            twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't want to put you on the spot, maniq, but how do imams who preach violence justify it? I mean, if everyone knows violence is un-Islamic, why don't people call the imams out on it?

            I don't believe any religion, including Islam, is inherently Islamic. I think the problem is when people think their holy books are infallible. Whenever you think your beliefs are incapable of being wrong, you have a recipe for disaster.

            Also, maniq, I want to thank you for your contributions to the forum. What you have said has been very elightening.

        2. LeanMan profile image80
          LeanManposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds more like the behavior of medieval fools who have not yet got themselves into the current century rather than what their religion says!

          Us Christians were still burning witches in the name of religion until a few hundred years ago.. and when did women actually get the vote? Less than 100 years since women in the west have been able to vote, in fact Switzerland didn't allow women to vote until 1971!

          I am sure as their countries catch up to "our level of civilization" they will stop trying to kill each over religion and use drugs and money as an excuse the same as the rest of us civilized people

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe, and maybe not. I don't like a lot of what goes on, but it isn't really my right to say they are medieval fools. If they, collectively, decide to live within those rules that is their right. Our 'level' of civilization doesn't make us more modern thinking. It means we have different values and expectations on how society works.

          2. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LeanMan ... sure we have bad eggs ... which community in the world doesn't?

            just fyi ... women in islam had the right to vote 1400 years ago and racism was abolished at the same time ... two muslims are brothers/sisters no matter what colour .... maybe its the other way around that you might have the "catching up to do" in various aspects of life to reach "our level of civilization".

            Just a thought.

      2. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Most of the conversions I hear about are those forced to become Muslim or die or those converting to participate in jihad.  I have known a few to say they were becoming Muslims.  They wore the clothes, ate a certain way, etc.  However, a year later they were on to something else.

    2. Shil1978 profile image87
      Shil1978posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am not sure the case of the girl with Down's syndrome in Pakistan is related  directly to any tenets of Islam, especially parts that relate to blasphemy, or with the local laws of Pakistan. Perhaps, someone can enlighten us as to whether there is anything in the Quran that provides exemption for some people from the blasphemy laws?

  4. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    No, it isn't.  Mosques I have seen in New Zealand and Fiji were clearly places of peace.  If others are places of violence then that is down to local conditions.

    1. 61
      maniqposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      thank you!. its always on local conditions, society and their culture (which is wrong by all means). its not the religion.  Too bad, one day everyone will find out!.

  5. Zubair Ahmed profile image80
    Zubair Ahmedposted 4 years ago

    Another "Islam is violent" thread - not bad at least you are taking the time to read and ask questions that shows you are willing to explore.  I just hope you find the truth and not jump to conclusions based on conjectures and preconceptions based on ideas floated by other biased sources.

    YES the Quran and Hadith state verses which calls the Muslims to war and fight so does the Bible call Christians to fght, so does the Torah and many of the other worlds religious books - but it also lays down rules and conditions which you fail to understand and accept.  The Quran along with the verses on war and violence also has hundreds of verses on good character, kindness, charity and all the good things that we all assume originated only in non-Muslim communities.  I just pray that you also get to read those verses as they will give you a different picture of Islam and Muslims.

    Did you know that Islam did not begin with 9/11 but has been around for more than 1400 years, how many World Wars were started by Muslims? How many countries destroyed by Muslim Bombs?

    I would urge us all to look for the good in other people, communities, religions and countries in an effort to reduce the divide and learn to live with each other.  That way will have less Wars and more peace.

    All the best

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You provide ample reason to reject those rules and conditions.



      We can easily think for ourselves using logic and reason to have good character, be kind and charitable without the need of a contradictory book like the Quran.



      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

      1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
        ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Troubled Man-- I went to the wikipedia site you mentioned above and was disappointed to see that  Islamic conquest territories were not even a  fraction of the British Colonial conquest territories.  What a shame for Islamic conquerors who did not do half as much in 700 years what the British did in less than 100 years-- bravo to British Colonials.  Anyone would declare Islamic conquests as a failure as compared to other conquerors who occupied many times more territories.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol I cannot believe you actually wrote that post. Outstanding!

          1. Greek One profile image80
            Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Check on what they did in the lands they conquered.. not the size of the territories they took

          2. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
            ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Troubled Man-- smile At least now you know that I am a fair person and accept the weaknesses of Muslims, in the field of violence and warfare. But at the same time, I leave you with some food for thought as to what actually made Islam so popular that now 1/4 people in the world are Muslims. The 'Rules of Engagement' in Islam were the main reason, which never let Islamic conquerors to use terror as a weapon to scare others before attack.  Apart from women, children and elderly; anyone who does not fight was not allowed to be executed.  Torture was strictly prohibited. Use of poison or fire was not allowed. Similarly deception was not allowed as a means of psychological warfare.  Dishonoring of women was strictly prohibited. All this were the causes of failure in battlefront, but success on the social front called winning hearts and minds.

        2. twosheds1 profile image60
          twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Imperial conquests are nothing new, and weren't new even then. Yes, the Islamic conquest were comparitively tiny, but that may have had more to do with the technology of the time, rather than how awesome they were that they didn't conquer more. Considering the period, I think they did a pretty good job.

          And I don't think anyone is excusing imperial conquests.

    2. Ewent profile image83
      Ewentposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      I know that religions born and bred by men are biased toward their male need for supremacy. I don't buy that Muslim women are such a threat to their men that they must hide their faces and by association, their identities. Is that what Allah intended when he created women's faces?

      The reality of the Quaran is that, like the Bible, it was written by scribes. It is based not on the teachings of Mohammed; but on the visions of Mohammed as a prophet. Scriptologists have proven the validity of the facts that the Quaran was written by ordinary men who chose to chronicle the visions of Mohammed.

      So...men are not perfect or infallible. They make mistakes in interpretation every hour of every day. Often, for their own benefit whether it's the Bible, the Quaran or any country's Constitutional laws. That's gender bias that has NO place in any religion. It only makes that religion suspect as to who the religion believes is the superior gender. Thus far nearly every religion tries to promote the idea that singular most perfect offering to God or Allah is a virginal male. That defies our biological reality. The idea that there's a heaven divided by gender...males to the uppermost region and women following is silly. Yet, this is what the Catholic Church as promoted for centuries. Has anyone died and return to confirm this?

      I am also admittedly turned off by the idea that a male who kills himself for the sake of religion gets a reward of 20 virgins. Is that what heaven is? A pit of males who finally get to indulge in sex? The very image is too childish to imagine.

      It is possible to interpret any document to suit a personal agenda. This is why I may be inspired by ancient writings. I just don't have to believe that the writer is superior because of his gender or because he interprets what he sees, hears and writes to suit his own personal gender format. I have never been all that fond of the visions of St. Paul because it is barely possible in his lengthy fasting and abstinence in those remote areas of Turkey, he was delusional. Denial of human sustenance plays havoc with the mind.

      Every human being, no matter which male religious spouts this differently, is born with free will that allows them to choose good or evil. Hiding behind the sanctity of any religion to take control is heinous and deliberate misinterpretation of the visionary experience.

      1. jacharless profile image80
        jacharlessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Talk about nearly hitting the nail on the head.
        Free Will > Tree of Life, Immortality
        Choice > Reason, Tree of Knowledge (good or evil within the parameters of Reason, the battle within the mind, madness, Adamic Inception, amnesia, death).

      2. arksys profile image91
        arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        - heaven lies under the feet of the mother.
        - After Allah, next Muhammad, then comes your mother; then your mother agian; then your mother again; then your father.

        to you these may sound like nothing useful in this world ... but for muslims these statements have a great meaning and the status of a woman is much higher than a man.

        women have rights that men do not have ... and men have rights that women do not have. there is still a healthy balance but its not as simple as the equal rights women are fighting for today.

        1. BuddiNsense profile image61
          BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          It is mother, mother and mother, even father becomes a distant second. She is the one who sacrifice most for your well being. The first two, have you seen either of them? Do you know them personally? What have they sacrificed for you?

          That sir, is a misleading statment.
          A man can marry four but a women can marry only one, so is 1:4 equality?
          A women's testimony has only half the value of men's, (because women cannot be trusted) is it equality?
          A women has to prove that she is raped while the man can most of the time go scott free, is that equality?
          Women's right are the most abused in muslim countries where they are denied the right to drive (in some countries) or the right to use the dress they choose and more importantly even the right to education (to site a few), is that sir the higher status for women you envision?

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            first you need to decide if you are talking about Islam ... or the followers of islam... the things you mention about women's rights being abused today is accurate and i agree with you 100%. but its not Islam which is at fault ... it is the followers who have modified the rules to suit their needs.

            1. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Islam not at fault?
              You mean your prophet didn't marry more than one at time and all such accusations are by slanderers?
              You mean Qur'an 2:282, 4:3, 4:11,  and 65:4 are not from Quran?
              A religion is no better than what its followers do collective.

              1. arksys profile image91
                arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                He did have 4 wives at a time yes... he had 13 wives during his life time... most of them were widows ... life was tough for a woman without a man in those days so he supported them.

                Quran [2:282] is below... check your sources ... i think you got the figures mixed up.

                O you who believe, when you transact a debt payable at a specified time, put it in writing, and let a scribe write it between you with fairness. A scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has educated him. He, therefore, should write. The one who owes something should get it written, but he must fear Allah, his Lord, and he should not omit anything from it. If the one who owes is feeble-minded or weak or cannot dictate himself, then his guardian should dictate with fairness. Have two witnesses from among your men, and if two men are not there, then one man and two women from those witnesses whom you like, so that if one of the two women errs, the other woman may remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when summoned. And do not be weary of writing it down, along with its due date, no matter whether the debt is small or large. That is more equitable in Allah’s sight, and more supportive as evidence, and more likely to make you free of doubt. However, if it is a spot transaction you are effecting between yourselves, there is no sin on you, should you not write it. Have witnesses when you transact a sale. Neither a scribe should be made to suffer, nor a witness. If you do (something harmful to them), it is certainly a sin on your part, and fear Allah. Allah educates you, and Allah is All-Knowing in respect of everything. (282) If you are on a journey, and find no scribe, then (you may have resort to holding something as) mortgage, taken into possession. However, if one of you trusts the other, then the one who has been trusted should fulfill his trust, and should fear Allah, his Lord. Do not conceal testimony. Whoever conceals it, his heart is surely, sinful. Allah is All-Aware of what you do. (283)

                1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                  BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Ayesha was a widow? Was the wife of his adopted son a widow?
                  Are women allowed to marry many widowers?
                  Why was life tough for a women (in Islamic community) that it needed one man to support four?

                  If the one who owes is feeble-minded or weak or cannot dictate himself, then his guardian should dictate with fairness. Have two witnesses from among your men, and if two men are not there, then one man and two women from those witnesses whom you like, so that if one of the two women errs, the other woman may remind her.
                  From YOUR quote only.
                  One man's equal to two women!! Women are feeble minded?

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    I did say most were widows, not all.



                    women can marry a widower if she likes... not more than 1 at a time though.
                    I think one of the main reasons for a woman not being allowed to marry more than 1 man at a time is because you will never know who's child she is bearing. therefore as the rule of giving the child a surname it will be difficult to conclude who's child it is. Another reason could be the man would reject a child who is lawfully and biologically his.
                    A period of 40 days has been set if the woman is widowed or has divorced before she can re-marry once again. this is also because if she becomes pregnant then it will be clear as to who the father of the child is and where the responsibility lies.


                    it was tough for a single mother to raise her children alone until not too long ago in the west as well... i'm assuming the earlier times would be harsher.


                    the reasoning has been given to you in simple words. interpretations may differ. It could be seen as men are good manipulators and can easily manipulate or pressurize a woman, therefore if 2 women are present then they can hold their ground with the support of each other to tell the truth about what they have witnessed ... a number of variations can come out of this in both the positive and negative sense.

        2. Ewent profile image83
          Ewentposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Heaven lies under the feet of women? I think not. Not when men stone women for being raped or committing adultery. How about hold your Muslim men up to the same, not double standards first before you try justifying such brutality and unspeakably inhuman cruelty?

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            the teachings do say heaven lies under the feet of the mother. if people don't want to follow is it the religions fault? it had the same rules since day 1, and works pretty well for those who follow.

          2. dianetrotter profile image82
            dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Arksys, I'd like to know about the rights that the women have.  I've only heard about the way they should dress and can be stoned for having sex.  I'm not asking to be sarcastic.

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              hi Diane,

              Arksys, I'd like to know about the rights that the women have.  I've only heard about the way they should dress and can be stoned for having sex.  I'm not asking to be sarcastic.

              there are 2 sets of rights.

              1. spiritual
              2. worldly

              As you probably know, not too long ago the place for the woman was in the house and the place for the man was to bring food to the table... things are changing with time and so is the muslim world, but we cannot change the rules because the times are changing... any addition to islam is called Biddah and is a grave sin which can expel even a muslim from the realm of Islam.

              Spiritually the women have a much higher status.
              In worldly affairs men have more rights.

              Dressing variations you will see within the muslim community. like many misinterpretations of hadith about killing non-muslims there are many interpretations of dressing ... both men and women are supposed to dress modestly with a little loose space in your garments so your figure is not visible... this goes for both men and women... covering the hair is also for both men and women... men usually do it only when praying (wearing the cap), however it is advised for men to do it more often too... i personally don't cover my hair either.

              Being stoned for sex - this is in the case of adultery, but there are very specific rules which need to be followed as this is a huge matter. if found guilty both the man and woman are stoned, this rule is no longer in use in most muslim countries today. the main part of the rule is that 4 people eye witnesses must come forward to testify... when 4 people have testified the matter still remains in the hands of the judge... if the judge has even the slightest doubt (that maybe 1 of the people are lying) then he will order them to be whipped instead.

              Marriage and 4 wives - the man needs permission of his first wife to marry another. if he is allowed by his first wife then he HAS to treat them equally in all aspects of a married life(financially, physically, emotionally etc). if he doesn't he has committed a sin. similarly when he wants to marry a third time he needs the permission of the first two wives. if he marries without the approval of his wives then he has sinned and will pay for it either in this world or the next.

              Just as Allah blew his spirit into man ... he blew his spirit equally into women.

              Men who were eager to fight with the prophet muhammad in the early battles of islam were ask that if they had anyone to look after their mothers... if he was an only child he was ordered to look after his mother instead of going to battle.

              "Among His Signs is this, that he created for you mates from among yourselves, that they may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): Verily in that are signs for those who reflect." [Quran 30:21]

              "Whatever men earn, they have a share of that and whatever women earn, they have a share in that." [Noble Quran 4:32]

              - this is a place where you may see a woman better off than a man... What men earn, there is a share for the woman (wife) in it.... what women earn, there is no share for the man (husband).

              its not a black and white scenario ... there are a number of complications and to the distant viewer it definitely can be seen as an equal rights problem area, but if it was really that bad for them don't you think they would have opted out of it all by now? its been 1400 years since our prophet passed away... my own sister spoke to me once saying she used to feel that women don't have equal rights but after giving birth to her first child she said she understood that women actually do have a higher status. (i still don't know what was going on in her head but relaying the msg as i heard it).

              I hope it answers some of your questions.

              1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                So if the wife gets the permission of her husband can she marry again?

                That, sir, is misleading. You know what happened to people who apostatized? When it comes to choice between death and slavery, most people choose slavery. Then there is the lack of education. People are so brainwashed they don't even know their rights. It shows the success of superstition not "equal rights".

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  out of the 20,000 people a year who convert to Islam ... why aren't the 75% who leave Islam in the first year get killed? (i saw these figures a few years ago, forgive if i'm wrong)

                  I will agree with you on the issue of education... even though Islam stresses on gaining knowledge it must be practiced more and more.
                  (did you know that if you go out to learn and die in the process you are a martyr in Islam... it is also a type of Jihaad ... you don't have to blow yourself up to get the best of heaven... and i've never seen the hadith which states you get virgins for jihaad... maybe you could share).

                  1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                    BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Are the 75% in the middle east or any muslim countries?? From where did you get that figure?


                    Gaining what knowledge?
                    Which of my comments say about virgins?
                    But since you brought it up,
                    Why Muhammad said he saw in heaven mostly men while in hell mostly women?
                    Hadith Al-Tirmidhi in the Book of Sunah (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah, chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise. The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Quranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman:

                    "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]."

                    Why not 72 husbands?

              2. dianetrotter profile image82
                dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Hi arksys, I had to look back to find this.  In your response to my question about how women are valued you wrote:

                "Whatever men earn, they have a share of that and whatever women earn, they have a share in that." [Noble Quran 4:32]

                - this is a place where you may see a woman better off than a man... What men earn, there is a share for the woman (wife) in it.... what women earn, there is no share for the man (husband).

                ---
                It seems husbands shouldn't have to worrying about the women not sharing what they because it seems they don't have an opportunity to earn anything.

                With regard to the other comments, I did not see where women were esteemed.  With all due respect, I don't understand what women get in heaven.  The men get "virgins."  Since the wives are not virgins, what do they get?

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Women do have the opportunity to earn. One of the prophets wives was a business woman, if a remember correctly.
                  An example from my family would be my sister who earns more than her husband because she has a higher qualification, or my cousin who bought a house with her own money and moved in with her husband. There is no restriction for a woman to earn money, every person comes with their own fortune.

                  The second question you ask is what I have also asked many fellow Muslim men and women. I still have not come across a satisfactory answer for that yet, so I'm sorry but cannot answer that one at the moment.

                  1. dianetrotter profile image82
                    dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Arksys, thank you for taking time to answer my questions.  I am truly asking because I don't know.  What country do you live in.

                    I asked about the women going to heaven because that is the ultimate reward of Christianity ... eternity in heaven for everyone who becomes a Christian.

                    I appreciate  the opportunity to discuss this with a real Muslim.  The ones who I have known in the past were jail house Muslims and knew nothing of the religion.

    3. Ewent profile image83
      Ewentposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      It's pretty difficult to look for the good when there's a photo of a group of men stoning a woman in a burka for adultery, pushing the male adulterers off a cliff and shooting them at point blank range. This was a photo in several prominent US newspapers. It was obvious people in the crowd behind the murdering men were cheering.

      Please do explain to us how anyone deserves such uncivilized punishment in this day and age? Stoning a woman who is raped? Because "she" dishonors her "father and brothers?" Is male honor such that it requires the support of uncivilized violence?

      I stand on my belief that it is the men in Islam who must clean house to get rid of the savages who perpetrate such uncivilized animal behavior in order to preserve Islam in peace.

  6. 61
    maniqposted 4 years ago

    how do murderers justify what they do?!.. the norweigian dude who killed so many innocent people justified it! People are stupid, people can sell themselves for a dollar. And in most of societies in today's world its happening, its going on everywhere. People don't opt-out the imams because they don't have the tendency to do so. They are slaves themselves and all they worry about is the 'war of survival'.

    Problem comes in when people try to justify everything according to what they know i.e. everyone making their own small mosque or church according to how they want to run so!.

    Beliefs are capable of going wrong, but one has to fix them, themselves.

  7. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/behead.jpg

    1. thooghun profile image86
      thooghunposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh wait.. I... the logic...

      what the hell?

  8. design4sites profile image60
    design4sitesposted 4 years ago

    Muslims are very kind and helpful people. they love all peoples . they dislike who don't respect them and their prophet .

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Which is it?

  9. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    How would I go about opening up a kosher bagel shop just outside of Mecca?    Or maybe a tourist shop selling bikinis, lotions, music etc?

    I would love to take advantage of all the pilgrimage traffic!

    1. arksys profile image91
      arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol ... sorry to burst your bubble but that aint happening in your lifetime ... smile

      1. Greek One profile image80
        Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        come on.. there's gotta be someone who I can give a few bucks to to look the other way

        1. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          now why would you want to sell bikini's in the middle of a desert? no shop for you. tongue

          fyi ... we are allowed to eat kosher meat.

          1. Greek One profile image80
            Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            BUT can you eat kosher meat while wearing a bikini??

            THAT is the true test of freedom!

            (especially if you are a man)

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              big_smile ... rofl.

  10. mrnasir profile image60
    mrnasirposted 4 years ago

    Wow...Most common question of the 21st century: Is Islam a violent religion?
    There are only two ways to find the answer:
    1. Believe, whatever anyone says about Islam (may be right/wrong) OR
    2. Read by yourself.
    The choice is yours.

    1. Greek One profile image80
      Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I thought the most common question was "what's wrong with that  Lindsay Lohan chic?"

  11. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    Greek One wrote:
    BUT can you eat kosher meat while wearing a bikini??

    THAT is the true test of freedom!

    (especially if you are a man)
    ================================

      Men shouldn't be wearing a bikini while eating any kind of meat;  least not at my back yard cookoffs.  No offence intended  to those that do.

    1. arksys profile image91
      arksysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      smile

  12. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    All religions barring jainism has had its share of violence...Prob with Islam is that it needs reformation and since most muslim stand on Qur'an being unaltered , reforming it is difficult. Religion is based on faith and most people take it too seriously ...The action of muslims even in protest show the violent streak...it has more to do with from where we came (i.e. jungle) t...fanatics do justify their violence quoting from books...

    1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
      ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      pisean-- the Muslims feel that killing 1.6 million people in Iraq in search of the never found Weapons of Mass Destruction was something violent, instead of protests that killed few. Also the drones that kill 1% terrorists and 99% innocent people. Everyone has his own definition of violence that favors him. Also that invasions are justified by declaring the invaded nation's religion as bad. Its an unending blame game as long as there is greed.

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @arshad then why do muslims who r killing more muslims than anyother faith call for jihad in their own country...syria, pakistan, afghanistan...pakistan army which has muslims in it kills balochs which r muslims on daily basis...their supreme court call fouls itself...syria which has muslims in government and army kills its own citizen in large numbers...taliban kills shias,sufis etc...so instead of looking outward solution for muslims lies within...three out of four caliphs where killed ...hussein was killed by yasid who himself was muslim...so muslim must introspect ...then blame west or others...

        1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
          ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          pisean-- If I accept your prognosis then the question that comes to my mind is; Pakistan was established in 1947--why the Pakistanis were not fighting among each other before the  incident of 9/11?  Don't forget that in Pakistan, the shia, sunni, sufi, baloch, punjabi, muhajirs have married among each other and have lived side by side for ages without having any history of fighting and still living. Killing there is a mystery.  Similarly Iraq and Syria also have no history of civil war between shia and sunni in last 1400 years which makes anyone wonder, if Islam teaches violence, then why all the Muslims waited for the recent Foreign Invasion, to start fighting each other.  Any student of history will not just  look at the face of events, but will go into the historical background.
          Regarding the Caliphs-- You did not mention that they were all killed within less then 20 years which makes one wonder why the other did not made a palace and arranged for proper security.  You picked up this slogan that 3/4 Caliphs were killed but did not bother to investigate their life style. Non of them had a palace or a history of executing its rivals. Non of them was killed by a rival group but infect an unknown killer. Those caliphs were not only leader of the nation but also the Imams whose job was to daily interact with common people five times a day,  in public mosque where they use to preach and settle disputes as a judge. One of the caliph was killed during prayer by a stranger who was praying close to him. The reason was simple; Islam is easy to enter and anyone can recite the Kalima and be next to the Caliph in the next prayer.  If the Caliph was late, he use to offer prayer in the last row and did not even had a special place in mosque.
          So they were world apart from other rulers or kings. Their life style made them vulnerable but to protect their own lives was not their objective. None of them left a fortune when he died because he was just a servant of Islam and not a King. And as you can see that this is the reason that the death of 3/4 Caliphs only promoted Islam instead of leaving a negative impact.  You will find ancient historical places, very well preserved including the simple grave with only one un-carved stone as a sign, to the small quarter where Mohammad PBUH use to live or for that matter other caliphs use to live but what you will not find is one luxury palace in those ruins in Macca, Saudi Arabia.  With so many enemies around and not having a Palace to stay away from common man, I am not surprised that they were killed but none was killed in a battle—the point that you missed.
          One of your respected leader Mahatima Gandhi  praised one of the Caliphs that,“The best thing to happen to India would be to be reigned by a dictator as just and upright as Umar, RA.”  (Gandhi).
          Regarding Yazeed-- I am not going to defend one black sheep that you found in Islam. You may have your own share of black sheep indeed.

          1. pisean282311 profile image57
            pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @arshad coming to my black sheep...My religion is humanity and every religious extremist is black sheep for me...In islam i have thousands ,in other have hundreds...but all r equally bad for human race...

            Mahatma Gandhi is respected world over because of his stand for transformation and so world celebrats 2nd oct as world non violence day.....But Mahatma gandhi understood islam through books...Mahatma Gandhi should have asked Iranians about umar, they have first hand experience and the way they treat umar is impt too than only what sunnis books tell about umar...

            pakistanis where not fighting before 9/11?...is baloch movement after 9/11 ...wasnt bangladesh part of pakistan ?...is ethnic clash new phenomena in pakistan?...where ahamadis always safe in pakistan...STOP IGNORING TRUTH..TRUTH IS THAT MUSLIMS HAVE NEVER HAD PEACE ANYWHERE SINCE ISLAM WAS BORN....they keep fighting...first muslim v/s muslim war had ali on one side and aisha on another...its politics at cost of innocent people ...

            1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
              ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              pisean-- Yes; baloch movement was not even known until last five years. Yes; Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, like Pakistan was part of India. Yes; ethnic clash is new phenomenon in Pakistan.

              23.5% of the world population is said to be Muslim and more than 80% live outside Arabia from where Islam started. It would be hard to prove that it was a violent religion as people don't buy such a religion. But I accept that the Mogul Kings of India were not that good example of Muslim rulers and apologize for that.  But the damage was done by the Islamic Saints of India whose writings and live styles, forced many to convert to Islam and the cast system in Hindu religion was also a contributing factor.

              1. pisean282311 profile image57
                pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                @arshad i am not questioning muslims out here...i am sorry if it landed that way....converting to faiths in not new phenomena in human race...it keeps happening and in future Islam too would see that happening...old ideas r replaced with new ideas...but that would be out of topic out here...

                one of major difference between other faiths and Islam is lack of reforms in latter...violence is in every faith ...from oldest to youngest...prob is people of modern era sticking to those verses which r irrelevant today...once muslims discard those verses violence would be subdued in Islam..

                coming to baloch movement it is 60 year old movement...Shia v/s sunni in pakistan is much older phenomena and karachi has seen muslim killing muslim much before ordinary pakistanis even knew what is full form of usa...

                In all muslim countries shia vs sunni ...wahabhis v/s shias have happened...arabia is home to wahanbhis and since advent of them , islam has become more violent day by day...Instead of blaming others , its time that peaceful muslims call for jihad against fanatics of their faith...

                1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
                  ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  pisean-- violence is part of human culture and Islam was not the only one where you can find instances of violence. I can give you hundreds of wars where Islam was not even close-- including in India. But I agree that due to a smear campaign against Islam, a young person in the west may believe that Islam had to be behind the World War 1 and World War 2 as well.  Islam is the only religion which explains that revenge is allowed only upto the extend of damage suffered but forgiveness is more like by the God.

                  Regarding Jihad against fanatics... indiscriminate killing of women, kids and elderly by bombing their villagers is not a Jihad. Neither it will bring peace to any conflict. We should not act like fanatics ourselves instead to try to resolve issues with dialog. 

                  But what we find is that fanaticism in this part of the world started after the invasion of Afghanistan. When so many international powers wanted a piece of Afghanistan cake due to vast natural resources in that area which may have caused the local population go fanatic. If all the countries including Pakistan start to respect the right to natural resources and freedom of Afghan people, peace is not far away.

                  1. pisean282311 profile image57
                    pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    @arshad nope...fanatism pre dates afghan invasion by centuries...if u see use of religion by dictators in name of infidels or name of god, u can see how much islam reformation is needed in current times...and it is not that difficult ...just disband few verses of quran and what u get is non violent islam...i am sure somebody would do that in futre...the day fanatics start taking quran's those verses not so seriously we would have peaceful future ...

      2. twosheds1 profile image60
        twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Arshad, you're committing a logical fallacy called "tu quoque," where one tries to excuse a wrong because someone else committed a worse one. If I commit a murder, it is not excused because Charles Manson killed many more people. Also, I agree drone strikes are indiscriminately killing civilians, and personally, I think killing even terrorists without a trial is unconstitutional and un-American. But drone strikes are not done in the name of Christianity, at least on a national level. Individual pilots or soldiers or whomever may find their own motivation, but as a national policy,  there is not a war against Islam, whatever your media may be telling you, or what certain buffoons (such as Ann Coulter) have said. Also we don't kill each other within the US because of religious differences, and I personally think ANY violence because of a difference of opinion - poltiical, religious or otherwise - is morally wrong.

        1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
          ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          twosheds--  I am totally with you on this one that killing is bad. All I am trying to tell you that we all want it to stop and since violence breeds violence, why not try to stop it at first place. I mean instead to put each other's religion on trial, we can think of what can be done to bring peace to this world. The public reaction is not always blamed on public alone.  I will advice you to listen to Ron Paul's speech about intimidating other nations. He has put it in a better way the reasons of this unrest that we see in this world today. I think if Ron Paul would be running for the Presidency, most of the unrest would have gone away automatically.  I feel sad that such an honest person who speaks the truth, could not succeed to be the Presidential candidate and we are still pulling each other's leg trying to prove that your beliefs are stupid and mine are superior.

  13. rouilliewilkerson profile image60
    rouilliewilkersonposted 4 years ago

    @thirdmillenium  Nope. Killing indescrimanently is against Islam. Ours is a faith of peace, mercy and submission to god (Allah). However, if attempts to force us to accept foreign religions ensue, particularly if they are accompanied with invasion into Muslim territories, we are commanded to not only resist, but overcome the invaders – utterly.

    And on the issue of religious fanatics *sigh* yes, Islam has been attached to groups like these, but these groups are unrecognized by practicing Muslims as truly Islamic. You cannot go against the teachings of the Qur’an (the guide given to us by Allah swt and delivered by angel Jibreel to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)), The Sunnah (accounts of Prophet Mohammad’s’ life (PBUH)) nor the Hadiths (his sayings), and call yourself a Muslim. Islam, in this sense, is incorruptible. You do, or you do not do. You believe or you do not believe.

    Additionally, we do not make allowances for innovations. In other words, just because it’s acceptable to be gay, does not mean we should change gods rules, and adapt to this innovation to appease popular, “modern” opinion. For the record (since I brought it up), homosexuality is considered a sin by Muslims, and corresponding acts are punishable by death. This does not, however, mean that we go out hunting gay people! It means that within the context of Islam (pertaining to Muslims), this is our law (Shari’ah).

    Besides, thirdmillenium, there are people that attach their  behaviors and theologies to others that truly practice faith to be found in any religion, sect or what have you. Nevertheless, media worldwide is quick to report and sensationalize just the guts, gore and ill-will that occur.

    People are people, and all should be treated fairly, teaches the Qur’an. We are taught not to hate or deal unjustly with our oppressors, or those that hate us, because god is with and loves the just.

    If you have any other questions, I’d be happy to do my best to answer them or direct you to someone that is more capable than I. 

    Key:
    PBUH: A respectful term meaning Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him.
    Swt (Subhanahu wa ta’ala): May He be glorified and exalt

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Showing well beyond a shadow of a doubt Islam is NOT a faith of peace and mercy, so don't try to label as such.



      And yet, Muslims don't all agree on Islam, hence you have your own factions that fight amongst each other. Some even get killed.



      You do little more than add more evidence showing Islam to NOT be a faith of peace and mercy.



      That isn't even remotely true.

  14. rouilliewilkerson profile image60
    rouilliewilkersonposted 4 years ago

    @thirdmillenium  Nope. Killing indescrimanently is against Islam. Ours is a faith of peace, mercy and submission to god (Allah). However, if attempts to force us to accept foreign religions ensue, particularly if they are accompanied with invasion into Muslim territories, we are commanded to not only resist, but overcome the invaders – utterly.

    And on the issue of religious fanatics *sigh* yes, Islam has been attached to groups like these, but these groups are unrecognized by practicing Muslims as truly Islamic. You cannot go against the teachings of the Qur’an (the guide given to us by Allah swt and delivered by angel Jibreel to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)), The Sunnah (accounts of Prophet Mohammad’s’ life (PBUH)) nor the Hadiths (his sayings), and call yourself a Muslim. Islam, in this sense, is incorruptible. You do, or you do not do. You believe or you do not believe.

    Additionally, we do not make allowances for innovations. In other words, just because it’s acceptable to be gay, does not mean we should change gods rules, and adapt to this innovation to appease popular, “modern” opinion. For the record (since I brought it up), homosexuality is considered a sin by Muslims, and corresponding acts are punishable by death. This does not, however, mean that we go out hunting gay people! It means that within the context of Islam (pertaining to Muslims), this is our law (Shari’ah).

    Besides, thirdmillenium, there are people that attach their  behaviors and theologies to others that truly practice faith to be found in any religion, sect or what have you. Nevertheless, media worldwide is quick to report and sensationalize just the guts, gore and ill-will that occur.

    People are people, and all should be treated fairly, teaches the Qur’an. We are taught not to hate or deal unjustly with our oppressors, or those that hate us, because god is with and loves the just.

    If you have any other questions, I’d be happy to do my best to answer them or direct you to someone that is more capable than I. 

    Key:
    PBUH: A respectful term meaning Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him.
    Swt (Subhanahu wa ta’ala): May He be glorified and exalt

  15. 0
    rabbiaYposted 4 years ago

    I remember my history teacher quoting a saying by a writer whose name i cant recall............
    ."Islam is the best religion, and muslims are the worst people"

    And though that cannot apply to all muslims ( i apoligize if i'v offeneded anyone) but that statement explains why non-muslims have so many questions regarding the religion of  "ISLAM" because they see everything that MUSLIMS do being a part of the religion,,but sadly just like followers of many other religion we muslims do not have the knowledge of Islam that we should and we do not exemplify our religion in its entirety....... this gives out the message that ISLAM is at fault when really it is us MUSLIMS who aren't following it correctly........................The religion in itself is amazing......... the literal meaning of ISLAM being PEACE.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @rabbiaY Islam means peace or submission?....anyways whether it is best religion or not is debatable...for that one needs to be aware about all 400 religions to reach to such conclusion...commenting before that would be immature part and emotional too...

      1. 0
        rabbiaYposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @pisean282311..........
        I agree ......commenting withought knowlege is pointless.

  16. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
    ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago

    Troubled Man-- Rest is OK but I expect you to not lie. Go and check the American Heritage Dictionary for the definition of Religion.

    And by the way you forgot to call me baloney this time. If it makes you feel better, I don't mind.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why would anyone lie about the definition of religion when it is readily available to everyone. lol

      1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
        ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Troubled Man-- Oh God-- you want people to work for you smile. Following is the copy paste from American Heritage Dictionary.

        NOUN:
        Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
        A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
        The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
        A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
        A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
        AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY.

        So, you see its not just a faith in Gods.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And yet, that's exactly what it says in the definition you provided. It says nothing about anything else regarding our lives. Do you understand, now?

          1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image80
            ARSHAD MAJIDposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Troubled Man-- Now you are living up to your nick. Half the definition is about a life, principle, activity pursued and practices based on teachings of a spiritual leader.

  17. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    The day will come when all we of faith will unite together and smite all the pagans of the world!

    ....After that, we'll get the Muslims and the Jews after each other, so that the Hindus and we Christians can divide the world in two amongst ourselves....

    just like God intended

    smile

    1. Love virus profile image59
      Love virusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      When did It intend hardware fragmentation?

  18. RoadWarrior2166 profile image60
    RoadWarrior2166posted 23 months ago

    One might ask was Catholicism a violent religion by launching the crusades? The Mongols accepted all religions but still waged war and slaughtered countless people. Evil is the issue and it hides behind doctrine or misguided believes to tear down civilized society.

    How many Muslim fanatics are there? Look at history, Hitler was able to recruit millions of men to join his Browns shirts in a Catholic country and preach genocide. Mao launched the cultural revolution based on his own cult resulting in terror, torture and death recruiting millions of young people to commit acts of mayhem .

    It's not the text of a book that makes people kill others.

    1. 0
      JThomp42posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      I think this quote sums up the Islam religion:

      Christians & Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe".
      A Muslim martyr says; "you will die for what I believe"....

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        JThomp42, if there were a like button, I would like your comment.

        1. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Exactly.  +1

      2. BuddiNsense profile image61
        BuddiNsenseposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Christians and Jews used to say "you will die for what I believe", don't forget that.

  19. SEEMA AQUA profile image59
    SEEMA AQUAposted 23 months ago

    Islam is a religion of Peace. It teaches us equality, love, unity & brotherhood. Islam wants the betterment of Humanity and wants to create a united society.

  20. SEEMA AQUA profile image59
    SEEMA AQUAposted 23 months ago

    I am muslim. Islam is perfect, but I am not. If I make a mistake, blame me, but not my religion.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      ALL religions are perfect...according to it's adherents.  But when the religion instructs its followers to perform evil acts, what then?  Is it still the fault of the follower or is a problem of the religion?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        You can blame the devil if things go wrong.

    2. C.V.Rajan profile image68
      C.V.Rajanposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Can we say that Islam is a perfect religion where a big majority of its followers are imperfect in interpreting and practicing the religion as per Quran?  Then there must be some serious problem somewhere!

  21. G Miah profile image82
    G Miahposted 23 months ago

    Islam will prevail over everything else.

    1. BuddiNsense profile image61
      BuddiNsenseposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      And this is the perfect answer for that,
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/43097?p … ost2696574

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Wonder if the devil is only from within your mind.

        Only kindness and love can get into mind.

        1. BuddiNsense profile image61
          BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          All from mind!!!

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            I meant to say

            Only love and kindiness is the only thing that is freely allowed to entre my mind

            1. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Not under your control at all!

            2. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Not under your control at all!

            3. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Not under your control at all!

            4. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Not under your control at all!

            5. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Not under your control at all!

            6. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Not under your control at all!

            7. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Not under your control at all!

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Love and kindness is under my control. You think the Goveniment is in controls on who and how I love my job, relationship and the World. Govenment tries to play God, butt I'm the BOSS

    2. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Well let's all hope that good will prevail over evil and that truth will prevail over deceit and that all forms of fascism are rejected.

  22. jacharless profile image80
    jacharlessposted 23 months ago

    All religion (theos) is violent, vile and futile, be it the sensational or scientific approach.
    For it or against it.
    Religion, by definition, is the Moral Dilemma.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Moral Dilemma

      Makes senses
      It may not coinicide with worldly ethics

  23. Writer Fox profile image81
    Writer Foxposted 22 months ago

    ISIS seems to think Islam is a violent religion and is threatening two more beheadings:
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/20/middl … index.html

    1. dianetrotter profile image82
      dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      And the Japanese don't get involved unless they are attacked.

      1. Writer Fox profile image81
        Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Japan donated $200 million to fight ISIS.  This is why two Japanese are now being held for ransom.  This is the statement from the video ISIS released:

        "And to the Japanese public: Just as your government has made the foolish decision to pay $200 million to fight the Islamic State, you now have 72 hours to pressure your government into making a wise decision by paying the $200million to save the lives of your citizens.

        "Otherwise, this knife will become your nightmare."

        1. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Although the Japanese embassy has helped in some projects in Pakistan ... i wish japan would have pledged that money for the starving people all over the world instead, or for clean water supply projects. $200 million... how many would that look after.

          1. Writer Fox profile image81
            Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            The money Japan donated to fight ISIS will help the 2 million starving refugees who fled the ISIS advance and help stop  the massacres and the refugee crisis which is still ongoing:
            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/d … camps-isis

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              thanks didn't know that it was to help people. sure is a shame.

              1. Writer Fox profile image81
                Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Japan's donation was for 'non-military' aid.

                Most of ISIS' victims so far have been other Muslims. Reports have emerged that the Sunni populations of Pakistan and India are at great risk due to an alliance between the Taliban and ISIS.  (Pakistani Taliban is the terrorist organization that sent gunmen into a school in Peshawar in December and killed 132 children, 9 adults, and wounded many others.)
                http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hafiz-saeed-kh … an-1484135

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  I am only 2 hours away from Peshawar, and was there last week. The TTP (pakistani taliban) is a newish group and after the killings in Peshawar the original taliban (afghanistani) cut their ties with TTP. TTP are basically fighting against the Pakistan army which is why they attacked the army school in Peshawar. they have however sent threats to all the schools in Islamabad. If they were fighting only the sunni then they would not send threats like this because schools here contain a mix of sunni, shia and christian kids. their only purpose is revenge for what has happened to them. its nothing to do with Islam, its plain and simple revenge. my niece told me her school received a threat recently, where they sent white cloths (body bags) and told them to be ready. I don't think they will attack schools again because of the outrage of the people of Pakistan as well as the death penalty being allowed on all the captured terrorists of TTP.
                  I can see a blood-bath in the near future and i could probably be one of the people in the statistics of this war, but i'm sure TTP will not be able to take hold of any place in Pakistan. I have faith in our army... (in the top 10 Armies of the world).

                  1. Writer Fox profile image81
                    Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    I hope you will be safe.

                  2. BuddiNsense profile image61
                    BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Not be so sure, it is not the ability of the army that decides, but the will and will can be manipulated.

          2. Ewent profile image83
            Ewentposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Japan, like all civilized nations, will continue to fight ISIS and ISIL because these are savages. Why do you feel the need to justify what ISIS does...like pushing a human being off a cliff to his death? Like stoning a woman to death for adultery?

            Through what possible religious tenet of faith can you EVER justify such brutality, savagery and inhuman acts?

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              the same civilized japan you nuked not too long ago?

              1. Ewent profile image83
                Ewentposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                The same Japan who tortured our soldiers in WWII. Not even the Japanese stoned women for adultery. The Japanese have never forced women and ONLY women to walk around in black death shrouds because some middle eastern men are so sexually repressed they can only handle the sight of a woman's eyes.

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  a simple Google search shows how your civilized men treat women.

                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … agues.html

                  http://www.internationalpolicydigest.or … n-assault/

                  http://speier.house.gov/index.php?optio … ;Itemid=15

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib … oner_abuse

                  there are a lot more results on google ... i just gave you the first 4.
                  look in the mirror before you talk.

                  1. Ewent profile image83
                    Ewentposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    No matter how many links you post, you lose the argument when photos show ISIS males standing over a woman with rocks in their hands stoning her for adultery. You lose the argument when a photo is posted of an ISIS male standing over a Japanese man he is about to behead.

                    So..tell us...is this your idea of civility? Islam may not be a violent religion. But, if it preaches that women have to walk around in black death shrouds with only their eyes showing because some idiot Islamic male can't control his sexual desires, then I'm sorry but that kind of ancient Neanderthal BS is not acceptable in today's society.

                    It is what You Islamic males do TODAY that counts. Stop trying to regurgitate history to prove savagery is acceptable. It is NOT and NEVER will be. Be prepared for the entire world to hunt down ISIS like the animals they are.

        2. jacharless profile image80
          jacharlessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Apparently they got involved. Oops. hmm

  24. jacharless profile image80
    jacharlessposted 22 months ago

    To be clear, I am not a supporter nor condoner of what Daesh is/stands for.
    But, it must be clarified that they are [no doubt] going to succeed in the restoration of the Ottoman (Sunni-based) Empire, which was watered down to Palestine and further watered down to the Transjordan region, and finally watered down to the Balkan-ized regions we currently call the Levant.

    If history is any indication, less than 85 years ago, these Balkan-ized areas, which are now called the states of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Golan, West Bank, Gaza, Israel, Jordan, etc., did not exist. They were formed from the British and French mandates just after WW2, completing the cycle of the total dissolution of the Ottoman Empire / Transjordan / Palestine territory.

    The people behind Daesh know this. As does the States, Britons and especially the French. Rather than stop the happening, they fueled, funded, trained and encouraged them, to be used as pawns, as hired thugs. The brainchild grew too strong for its masters and now has them in total chaos -evidenced by over 2,000 airstrikes x 2 missiles each, between a coalition of 100 countries, and a laundry list of other effects from petrol prices to food. Yet still they persist and expand even more rapidly, now into North Africa (also once a large portion of the OE) as well as the hedges of Europe. The sad irony is the "force" believed to stave off Daesh are the Kurds. A people disliked by all its neighbors yet given the promise of the State of Kurdistan (with Western occupation, naturally). A strategic crescent country buffering Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria to keep them all in check?

    History is an interesting thing.
    And religious history even more interesting.
    The religious future is not going to be so interesting.

  25. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 22 months ago

    I cannot fathom the polls I have read regarding sharia in islam. I cannot fathom the uhm context, proposition or premise of the poll itself. The requisite or need for a poll like that, seems outlandish, in and of itself

    Paraphrasing (badly I admit) :

    Should people be killed for leaving islam? Yes, No, undecided?
    Should people be stoned to death?
    Should people be killed for insulting islam? Yes, No, Maybe?
    Should people have their hands cut off? Raise your hand if you agree?


    If the need for the poll itself is not alarming enough, the results are terrifying. Who printed these polls? Did they think it was a sick joke? Can anyone imagine weighing the decision and marking the poll accordingly? Has the world gone completely insane? Do you punch out the chads of a poll like that with a sharp object or a blunt instrument?

    1. arksys profile image91
      arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      interesting to see that half the muslims don't know that the sharia is derived by men and not the word of god. thanks for sharing this... there is a lot to be learnt from this especially for muslims.

      1. BuddiNsense profile image61
        BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        So are the hadiths.
        And you only have the word of your parents that quran is the word of god. Did god ever tell you?

  26. BuddiNsense profile image61
    BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago

    Islam, is it a violent religion?
    The question should be, is it the most violent religion NOW?

    1. arksys profile image91
      arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Islam has been the same from day 1.
      adding the word "now" means its the muslims of today at fault, not the religion itself, therefore will not support your arguments... you'll have to think a bit harder. lose the emotion and you'll perform better. i'm not going anywhere.

      1. BuddiNsense profile image61
        BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        The major present religions were all violent some or other time in their history except probably the major Chinese ones including Buddhism, and that is why I added "now", as a comparative analysis(MOST....now). I never said it was non violent.
        If Islam was the same from day 1 it is a violent religion for it started with violence (from its tradition). Though it never repudiated violence, it was less violent and was more scientific than the west (read christianity) between 9th and 12th century.

        1. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          violence was in the people of the time... the first few battles of islam were only to defend islam... its a matter of perception ... look from muhammad's point of view standing today you could say he was being attacked for his "freedom of speech"... he did not hold the sword at people to join islam... people believed in him (shows character) and followed his path on their own .... but if you call defending yourself violent too then sure i agree with you 100% ... it was violent from day 1.

          1. BuddiNsense profile image61
            BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            No, the first battles were stated by muslims. After conquering Mecca, armies were sent out to conquer. Armies were sent even to Byzantium. It didn't start as a defensive war, but as an offensive one. Muhammad's followers attacked Meccan caravans. Meccans were reacting against raiders. Even after the peace treaty, it was first broken by Muslims.
            Did you here me blaming Muhammad? [Muhammad did what any ruler of that time did. He cursed t his people, he insulted them, their customs and gods. They resorted to violence only when it became intolerable (one only have to compare how Muhammad was treated with how Muhammad treated the poets). Any preacher can get followers, so getting followers doesn't mean anything other than that the preacher is charismatic. Once Muhammad was out of Mecca, after the peace treaty who started the attack?] It was fit for that time and place. A tribal society with barbaric rules, his rules were progressive to that time, but regressive today. It  was applicable only to that particular time and place, not eternally applicable.

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              I stopped after your first sentence.
              i was talking about before mecca... the initial stages ... the muslims were driven out of mecca... they had battles in between.

              1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Then read it fully, it is not a good habit to answer before knowing what the other person said, nor the answer will be correct.
                Muslims were driven out because they insulted the local people. Then they started raiding Meccan caravans.

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  insulted by freedom of speech ... freedom of thought ... freedom of belief?

                  1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                    BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    You ask your prophet or his followers which of these insulted them that they decided to kill the poets, decided to attack neighboring tribes and nations, they will tell you. You can also ask the present followers which of these they find offensive in a few cartoonists, novelists or a few scholars who genuinely doubt the authenticity of Islamic tradition.

      2. C.V.Rajan profile image68
        C.V.Rajanposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Arksys,
        You said Islam has been the same from day 1.
        I think that is the fundamental problem. There is perhaps no proper evolution.

        C.V

        1. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          C.V,
          That is a good observation, but what i meant was the principles have and always will be the same, but there is evolution or new rules added if you like.

          as an example:  the prophet set the principle of dealing honestly when selling goods like milk. after the prophet passed hazrat umar found out that people were mixing water in the milk to gain on their sales. Umar then gathered a group of men and women who used to monitor the markets to make sure the people were not cheated. (note: both seller and buyer were muslims) ... therefore evolved into a monitoring system of markets.

          so if you let me re-phrase then ... the principles have been the same from day 1.

          Irfan.

          1. C.V.Rajan profile image68
            C.V.Rajanposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Irfan,

            In Hinduism, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to say that the scriptures contain sugar and sand mixed together. The earnest seeker should take the sugar and discard the sand. Fortnately, in Hinduism, great spiritual masters come from time to time and guide the people on the righteous path suited to the times.

            That's how a bold statement by Ramakrishna as stated above is possible in Hinduism.  Probably if any Islamic saint says so about Quran, he would probably be beheaded!

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              you are probably right about the chopping of the head if someone tried to change the rules of the Quran. No one changes the Quran but we do have fatwa's which are issued according to the time by scholars of Quran. that is where the evolution you speak of comes from in Islam. They are not mandatory but more like an advise of what to do if you're not sure.

              1. C.V.Rajan profile image68
                C.V.Rajanposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Ah! I think the the problem is with "scholars" interpreting the Quran. In Hinduism scholars can interpret scriptures in any way they like and keep arguing with other scholars. But they have no authority. It is saints/ spiritual masters/ Avatars/ Gnyanis to whom people go to understand true spirituality and get spiritual guidance.

                Followers take the word of realized masters, because they know that what a saint interprets will be in line with dharma and the spirit of the scriptures rather than the "words" of the scriptures.

                (Again, there may be groups of people not acknowledging a Realized master and they may even oppose his guidelines. That's part and parcel of the variety of scope available in Hinduism).

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  similar to you we do have "Qalandars" who are spiritual leaders and with time become very influential people. Many follow their routes and because of their closeness with the Almighty. you also get a number of phony leaders this way.

                  The problem we have is that mazaars are made in their names (where they are buried) and people go to these mazaars and ask that person to pray for them. These people have taken it too far because in Islam you only ask and need Allah, and that is why most of the sects do not follow or have stopped using this culture.

                  but looking at the big picture i would agree that there are only scholars and since they differ in opinons and interpretations there are people who follow them and others that don't ... but no real leader who has come along to correct things... In the ideal Islamic environment this would be the job of the caliph of the time, which today does not exist.

  27. Nithya Sree profile image59
    Nithya Sreeposted 22 months ago

    Nice Nice

  28. Dip Mtra profile image87
    Dip Mtraposted 22 months ago

    Jihad, that should answer the question. The nonbelievers are infidels and need to be decimated. Strife within, strife outside. A romantic gun toting cowboyish movement where the stray cattle and horses are to be lassoed and tamed to remain within the fence.

    1. arksys profile image91
      arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      lol ... the Indians are in the house ladies and gents... dunno why i get the feeling buddinsense and Nithya Sree are your friends? I could be wrong, but it doesn't matter.

      By the way ... that 58 year old hindu lady in Bihar who saved the lives of 10 muslims 4 days ago deserves a medal. its was sad to hear that the wrong-doers managed to burn 3 muslims alive though... My grandmother lived in Bihar too and Hindu's helped her escape to Pakistan during the rough times. Proud to be a Bihari. (jo na katay aari se, woh katay bihari se) wink

      Back to the topic,

      you just wrote your own interpretation of Jihaad... which Jihaad are you talking about? the greater jihaad or the lesser jihaad? also seems you quoted the Quran ... you need to add the chapter and verse so i know where you are quoting from. try again please if you are interested in clearing your mind about islam... if you only want to say what you want to say then go ahead and get it off your chest. trust me you'll feel better. i'm listening.

  29. arksys profile image91
    arksysposted 22 months ago

    Sorry I don't know about the last beheading or the last woman to get stoned. It's not on the news here ever. Mostly only shown in the west to show how cruel we are. You would argue that we may like to hide it or whatever. Ypu can believe what you have seen and I will believe what I have seen.

    I did get curious during this discussion if in fact our women did feel repressed or lower than a man so I asked a few I know.
    Question put forward was : do you feel any lesser than a muslim man being a Muslim woman?

    An answer from a convert friend who has been practicing Islam and studying for 2 years:
    Islam doesn't make me feel lesser, Islam makes me understand my value and how we are to be honoured and respected. Muslim men however, don't seem to read the same message from the texts...I guess everyone reads with bias.

    Second answer from another acquaintance who was born in a Muslim family:
    Not at all. I feel much more stronger! To understand equality you must first understand islamic society, What it is supposed to be like in Medina when prophet was governing...

    From this and what I see around me everyday I can safely say that Islam is not at fault... It is the men who follow wrongly who are at fault. So when you stop blaming Islam and start blaming the people who are not following the teachings of Islam, I will agree with you everytime.

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I saw a youtube video of a woman that was being bull-whipped.  While there was a "crowd of people watching" the man bull-whip this woman, she was screaming. The supposed reason for the bull-whipping was because she had worn a pair of pants in public.  I was curious if this was a valid reason. I am thinking if it is about keeping covered up, or to keep from "provoking desire" from the men, that pants would serve that purpose just as well as a black, head to toe dress or whatever? Is there a rule against pants?

      1. arksys profile image91
        arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        i've even heard that wearing a tie is wrong from many ignorant muslims. The main reason for whipping is probably not because of the clothing item itself. What hurts them the most is change in which most muslims are now imitating the west in dressing. There is nothing wrong in wearing pants for male or female as long as they are not too tight (I.e: highlighting the figure), and as long as the required areas are covered you can do whatever you like. The people who whip have made their own rules.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          There is nothing wrong in wearing pants for male or female as long as they are not too tight?  Right or wrong ways of dressing?  If not a whip, what is the punishment for "wrong dressing"? What if women just wear whatever they want? If there is right or wrong dressing "rules" then a woman that dresses wrong is at the very least a target.

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            as far as i know there is no punishment for dressing however you want. If the people whipped her for wearing jeans, they will be punished for their ignorance by Allah. This could be seen an example of 'Biddah' (addition in the teachings of Islam), which leads straight to hell even if you claim to be the most pious muslim. (even if a thousand others testify)

            Islam only encourages dressing modestly for both men and women. I cannot explain it better than the person who wrote this article. please go through it if you have the time. http://www.mwlusa.org/topics/dress/hijab.html

  30. arksys profile image91
    arksysposted 22 months ago

    It definitely is not Islam. I felt crushed when they killed the second Japanese man. I have a great respect for the Japanese because they have so much discipline and have excelled in becoming such a strong economy after the nuclear attack. They also aid Pakistan in various areas and never boast about it. I just did not want to see anything negative to happen to them.
    Jordan did the right thing by executing 2 ISIS prisoners. I hope they execute all of them. It is a disease we need to get rid of.
    After the killings of children in Peshawar the government brought back the death penalty in Pakistan then started executing the prisoners of the Taliban in Pakistan... Unfortunately it only lasted a week or so with a handful executed. The rest have not been executed and I don't understand why not. Corrupt officials are most probably the cause.
    Last week Friday someone bombed a Shia mosque in shikarpur killing 53. Our Friday's are like your Sunday's where everyone goes on that day and that's when the bomb went off. Once again sunni Muslims like myself have to stand up and openly declare to the shia that we are not against them and we stand united against this violence on the shia (minority). I had to reassure my own friends who are Shia too... There is just too many reassuring going on on this side but only a handful will take your word for it. I can at least sit comfortably and know that I tried as best I could to keep the unity between Muslims as well as to help clear the stain on Islam.

    You are a strong woman to endure all that during your lifetime. God is with those who have patience, and you are never given more burden than you can bear. In tough times we normally give more to the needy than usual to help ease our issues. Even a smile to a stranger is considered as a charity (doesn't need to be monetary). I would suggest you try it if it doesn't create a conflict with your belief system.
    You will be in my prayers and Inshallah (God willing) your boss will come around.
    Take care and God bless.

  31. Marko Miholic profile image60
    Marko Miholicposted 22 months ago

    Comrad Stalin,Mao tse tung and their best buddy Adolf Hitler are on the list of the top mass murderers in history. Non of them are muslims, in fact they did not have true religion.

    In my opinion human race will always have ups and downs.
    To blame it on religion alone is superficial, blame it on the person doing the killings.

    1. Barbara AK profile image61
      Barbara AKposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      You are correct that the person doing the violence is responsible and to blame, but if he follows the Quran's command to commit that violence then the Quran is also responsible. Isn't that also correct? The Quran says to kill all non-believers doesn't it? To chop off their fingers and heads, etc? Make it hard on them and their families to make them convert? It also says to punish in violent ways for other things that people may do that is against Islamic rules. Pedophilia is allowed in the Quran, therefore it is also wrong as the man is wrong for committing those acts. It also says that a man can have sex with an animal such as a goat or sheep or camel but then he has to kill that animal after he has had his "heavenly feeling". Is that not in the Quran? Is this also permitted for this day as well as ancient times? The Quran is the Bible of the Islamic religion, right? Therefore Islam is ultimately responsible and will be held guiltless for all the murders and violence committed by the humans it has influenced to commit these violent acts against humanity and animals. Islam condemns itself. It certainly is a violent religion. I blame it on the Religion as well because it influences the person to do the killing.

      1. arksys profile image91
        arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Barbara ... i'm not sure which Quran you have been reading, but i can assure you it is not the Quran which teaches all that you have mentioned. I know you have a personal grudge against Islam but please try to look at things without bias. If you have specific quotes then please do share them and i will try to clear the misconceptions, that is, if you are really interested in knowing the truth of the Quran.

        1. Barbara AK profile image61
          Barbara AKposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          I do not have a personal grudge, I have a personal dislike of Islam because of what the Quran tells it's followers to do to others which is violent and not even human but demonic and hateful. I will post some of these verses here for you to explain to us what they mean. It is not just these verses but the people who are obeying them that I am against.
          1. Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them". What the heck is that?  A Horrible, peaceful religion. Is not the prophet telling believers to do this literally? It is right there in black and white.
          2. Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." 
          3. Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
          4. Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..."   "Strive against" is Jihad
          5.Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"  Islam is not about treating everyone equally.
          6.Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"   Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict.  This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."   Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.
          7. Tabari 9:69  "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"  The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
          There are many other verses about starting wars and killing non-believers.
          I'll start with those verses. Thanks.

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            1.  Quran (8:12 - 8:15) When your Lord revealed to the angels: “I am with you. So, make firm the feet of those who believe. I shall cast awe into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So, strike at the necks, and strike at every finger-joint of theirs.” (12) That is because they were hostile to Allah and His Messenger; and whoever becomes hostile to Allah and His Messenger, then, Allah is severe at punishment. (13) That is what you have to taste, and for the disbelievers is the (further) punishment of the Fire. (14) O you who believe, when you face the disbelievers in a battle, do not turn your backs to them. (15)

            It is a story which is talking about war. you may note that in 8:13 it does say it is because they were hostile. the thing to note here is the quran teaches us peace, but it also teaches us to be firm with those who act against us.

            2. Quran (9:1 - 9:7) Here is a disavowal (proclaimed) by Allah and His Messenger against the Mushriks (polytheists) with whom you have a treaty. 1 (1) So, move in the land freely for four months, and be aware that you can never frustrate Allah, and that Allah is going to disgrace the disbelievers. (2) And here is an announcement, from Allah and His Messenger, to the people on the day of the greater Hajj, 2 that Allah is free from (any commitment to) the Mushriks, and so is His Messenger. Now, if you repent, it is good for you. And if you turn away, then be aware that you can never frustrate Allah. And give those who disbelieve the ‘good’ news of a painful punishment. (3) Except those of the Mushriks with whom you have a treaty, and they were not deficient (in fulfilling the treaty) with you, and did not back up any one against you. So fulfill the treaty with them up to their term. Surely, Allah loves the God-fearing. (4) So, when the sacred months expire, kill the Mushriks wherever you find them, and catch them and besiege them and sit in ambush for them everywhere. Then, if they repent and establish Salah and pay Zakah, leave their way. Surely, Allah is most Forgiving, Very-Merciful. (5) And if any one of the Mushriks seeks your protection, give him protection until he listens to the Word of Allah, then let him reach his place of safety. 3 That is because they are a people who do not know. (6) How can the Mushriks have a treaty with Allah and His Messenger? Except those with whom you made a treaty near Al-Masjid-ul-Haram . Then, as long as they remain straight with you, you too remain straight with them. Surely, Allah loves the God-fearing. (7)

            In order to understand these verses, it is necessary to note that the polytheists in Arabia were of four categories as regards their political relationship with the Muslims: (a) Those who had entered a peace treaty with the Muslims for an indefinite period. Verse 1 declares the termination of such a treaty, but verse 2 allows a period of four months for such people before the termination takes effect. In other words, the terms of the treaty are allowed to be continued for four months only. (b) Those who had a treaty for a definite period, and did not violate its terms. Verse 4 directs the Muslims to honor the treaty up to the agreed period, no matter how long it may be. But after the expiry of the agreed term, it will not be renewed, and the disavowal will be operative. (c) Those who had no treaty with the Muslims at all. Such people are again allowed (in verse 2) a period of peace for four months. (d) Those who had a treaty with the Muslims but breached it on their own initiative (like Quraish). Such people did not deserve any respite, but the disavowal having been announced in the Sacred Months, no war could be waged against them during this period. The Muslims are therefore directed to fight against them only after the expiry of the Sacred Months. (verse 5) As explained in the introduction, the basic purpose of this announcement was that the Arabian Peninsula, the base of Islam, had to be cleansed from polytheism. The polytheists have been given these different periods to think about their future and to decide whether they are convinced to accept Islam, or they wished to leave the land and live elsewhere, or to face war. Since all these rules must have been clearly conveyed to the relevant parties, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) directed his noble Sahabah Abu Bakr (R.A.A) and ‘Ali (R.A.A) to announce them at the time of Hajj in year 9 A.H. (See verse 3). It should also be borne in mind that the rules mentioned above are restricted only to the Arabian Peninsula. In other Muslim states, the non-Muslims may live as minority citizens with all their civil rights safeguarded, so far as they submit to the laws of the Islamic state.

            I have to step out right now, but will come back to answer the rest for you at a later stage. One thing you need to keep in mind is that the quran tells you stories about the past and about a specific set of people. it also covers many wars therefore you will find violence in it. We are not under those circumstances today therefore it does not apply to us.

            1. BuddiNsense profile image61
              BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Why, aren't the polytheists human? Muhammad usurped power in Medina, according to the islamic tradition it was Muhammad himself who broke the treaty with Mecca (we do not get to hear the Meccan version), so what right muslims have in waging war against Arabia or killing them?

              In non muslims states will the muslims live as minority citizens submitting to the laws of that state?

              1. dianetrotter profile image82
                dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Good question Budd.

              2. arksys profile image91
                arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                yes they are supposed to follow the laws of that state. It is not their land therefore the Muslim laws do not apply.



                A delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community.
                ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Medina

                you have to get your facts right first. twisting facts according to what you want to believe is something i cannot help you with.

                1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                  BuddiNsenseposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  I have my facts right, he was called as an arbitrator not as a ruler, you yourself acknowledge that. Then he became the ruler and do not forget, the history is one sided. We do not know anything about what Medina people wanted. We have a glimpse though, he had two banish two tribes and kill another.

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    why would someone call Muhammad as a chief arbitrator of a city, if he was so wrong? I mean would you even think to advise anyone to call upon an ISIS member to come as a chief arbitrator of any city of the world today? I definitely would not.

                    It shows the greatness of character that Muhammad possessed.

                2. BuddiNsense profile image61
                  BuddiNsenseposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Then why didn't the first Muslims follow the Qurash law?

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    They weren't allowed to believe what they wanted to. no freedom of speech or belief, and they had wars because of it. you seem to know your history so you must know they tried to kill Muhammad more than once.

            2. Barbara AK profile image61
              Barbara AKposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              The Quran:

              Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

              but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"  The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries.  In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they  later did).  The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse).  The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation.  Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. ~TheReligionofPeace.com Guide to Understanding Islam

              1. arksys profile image91
                arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                The description I put forward was from a very well known scholar - Mufti Taqi Usmani. This is in the commentary (also known as Tafseer) of the English translation.

                I do not know the authors of TheReligionofPeace.com, therefore cannot truly rely on their words. I would advise you use www.quranexplorer.com where you can get the tafseer by choosing Mufti Taqi Usmani in the translation list of quran explorer.

                One more thing "idtihad", as far as i know means unity. I could be wrong but i'm 90% sure that is what it means.



                "Muhammad had preached the religion of Islam in Mecca from 613 to 622. He had attracted a small community of followers, but also drew staunch opposition from the rest of the Quraysh, the tribe that ruled Mecca and to which he belonged. The Muslims fled Mecca in 622 after years of persecution and established themselves at Medina (formerly known as Yathrib), Medina means City. The Quraysh had seized the properties and families of Muslims in Mecca and dispatched caravans to Damascus which the Muslims intercepted and raided. The Meccans sent out a small army to punish the Muslims and stop their raiding. At the Battle of Badr in 624, a small Muslim force defeated the much larger Meccan army.

                Many Muslims considered this unexpected victory a proof that they had been favored by God and believed they were assured such victories in the future.[4] A number of the leading tribesmen of Quraysh had been killed at Badr and so leadership passed to Abu Sufyan. He forbade the mourning of the losses at Badr, for he was eager to exact revenge upon Muhammad, vowing to conduct a retaliatory raid on the city of Medina. Several months later, Abu Sufyan accompanied a party of 200 men to the city, obtaining temporary residence with the chief of the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir and learning more of the current situation in Medina. He and his party then left Medina, burning down two houses and laying waste to some fields in fulfillment of his vow. Further skirmishes between the Meccans and the Muslims would occur thereafter.

                The reason for the battle was to defend against a Quraysh attack"

                ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud

                I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

            3. Barbara AK profile image61
              Barbara AKposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Thank you for your time in answering my questions. I am sure that there are many Muslims that don't believe in violence. However, the Quran seems to be pushing it on it's own, old testament or new. You say that it does not apply to us today but Muslims all over the world are starting wars to spread Islam for the sake of Allah. Therefore since the war is happening now, that gives them the right to obey the commands of old testament laws? That means it is ok to chop the head and fingers off and wait in ambush and make it hard on non-believers? Where do you find the distinction between old and new Islamic laws regarding the infidel? Apparently it seems to be so vague that 'radical' groups are rising up everywhere starting these wars. Aren't they clearly following the Quran? They start the war and then have the right to do whatever it says. I do not think it is just for the old days but can be also used today to kill people who do not believe in Allah. Everyone has the God given right to believe what they want.

              1. arksys profile image91
                arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                it does not give them any right in this day and age. As i mentioned before, the Quran contains stories of war and the orders which were given to the people of that time. The way you present the Quranic verses are good examples of how they can be used to incite hatred against non-muslims. they do not explain the context of the story, therefore are successful in their brainwashing techniques.
                It is not ok to hurt another human whether muslim or non-muslim.



                The laws were valid during the life of the prophet. Once mecca was taken, these rules did not apply. Many non-muslims did come to the prophet to accept Islam. If he treated them as infidels then no one would be allowed to convert to Islam either, because according to the script "kill them wherever you find them".

                I agree that everyone has the right to believe what they want. By forcing Islam down someones throat doesn't make the person a Muslim, because Allah knows what is in the hearts of the people and if you don't accept it in your heart then you will never be a muslim. In the eyes of the world a certain muslim could be seen as the most pious muslim yet he could still be an infidel in front of Allah. We cannot be the judge, it is not our place.

                1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                  BuddiNsenseposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Then why did he tried to attack Byzantium?

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    I'm sure you can look these things up quite easily using google. I'm not a historian, and i'm not denying that these things did not happen. If you have a point you are taking this towards then bring it out. if not, then its no use creating a new wikipedia here. 

                    "According to Muslim biographies, Muhammed, having received intelligence that Byzantine forces were concentrating in northern Arabia with alleged intentions of invading Arabia, led a Muslim army north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of pre-emptively engaging the Byzantine army; the news, however, proved to be false. Though it was not a battle in the typical sense, nevertheless the event represented the first Arab attack on the Byzantines. It did not, however, lead immediately to a military confrontation.[8]

                    However, there is no contemporary Byzantine account of the Tabuk expedition, and many of the details come from much later Muslim sources. It has been argued that there is in one Byzantine source possibly referencing the Battle of Mu´tah traditionally dated 629, but this is not certain.[9] The first engagements may have started as conflicts with the Arab client states of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires: the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids of Al-Hirah. In any case, Muslim Arabs after 634 certainly pursued a full-blown invasion of both empires, resulting in the conquest of the Levant, Egypt and Persia for Islam. The most successful generals were Khalid ibn al-Walid and 'Amr ibn al-'As.

                    In the Levant, the invading Rashidun army were engaged by a Byzantine army composed of imperial troops as well as local levies.[1] According to Islamic historians Monophysites and Jews throughout Syria welcomed the Arab invaders, as they were discontented with Byzantine rule.a[›] The Arabian tribes also had significant economic, cultural and familial ties with predominantly Arab citizens of the Fertile Crescent."

                2. Barbara AK profile image61
                  Barbara AKposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  I am glad you believe that no one has the right to push Islam down anyone's throat. And you are right, if a person only says they are a believer but in their heart they are not, God knows. So are you saying that these laws to kill the infidel do not apply at all today and that those Muslims who are killing in the name of Islam are wrong? Thanks for answering.

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    that is correct ... it does not apply today and those who think or claim to be following in the name of Islam are wrong.

  32. Sohail Almani profile image59
    Sohail Almaniposted 22 months ago

    No not at all even its prohibited in to kill some one. as said that killing one innocent people is killing of whole humanity . So if some one who is doing so he is doing for his personal . And no body in History Islam has ever fought for His own interest .If some one killing non Muslims without any reason or due to the different belief then he is not follower of Islam

    1. MonkeyShine75 profile image80
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      You said " killing one innocent people is killing of whole humanity"

      But you forgot to mention that you see Muslims as the only innocent people, and very few others.
      Those who aren't Muslim, you see them guilty of sin, and not innocent. so please be honest, instead of hiding what you really think in twisted words

      1. Barbara AK profile image61
        Barbara AKposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        MonkeyShine, so true. God bless.

  33. Sohail Almani profile image59
    Sohail Almaniposted 22 months ago

    No not at all even its prohibited in to kill some one. as said that killing one innocent people is killing of whole humanity . So if some one who is doing so he is doing for his personal . And no body in History Islam has ever fought for His own interest .If some one killing non Muslims without any reason or due to the different belief then he is not follower of Islam

    1. Barbara AK profile image61
      Barbara AKposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      There have been many Muslims today and in past history who have killed for his own interest. How can you claim otherwise? Muslims make war for Allah then follow the Quran to kill those they started the war against. The act of being in war gives the Muslim the right to violence against the infidel including cutting off fingers, heads, etc. And the wars are started against non-believers just because they do not believe in Allah or have a different religion. That was in history of Islam and is also happening today all over the world for the sake of Allah, Islam and personal interests.

      1. MonkeyShine75 profile image80
        MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, and from what I understand there is only one true God, we just call him by a different name

        1. Writer Fox profile image81
          Writer Foxposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          The name of God in the Hebrew Bible has four letters: Yud Hey Vav Hey: יהוה. There is no accurate transliteration for The Name into English. Every other Hebrew word is built upon a root of three letters.  This is the only word that is a four-letter prime root. It is quite unusual and quite specific. "God, furthermore, said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘יהוהי, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations." (Exodus 3:15) 1446 BCE

          This Name of God appears more than 7,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, beginning with the second chapter of the book of Genesis.  In contrast, it never appears in the Qur'an of Islam, or in the Christian testament.

          In the Qur'an, Muhammad introduced the god of his religion as 'Allah.'  When Muhammad was born in Mecca in Arabia (circa 570 CE), more than 360 gods were worshiped at the Kaaba, a pagan shrine which housed idols. Each family had its own patron god and the god of Muhammad's family was 'Allah.'  His father's name was Abd-allah (servant of Allah). Allah was the pagan moon god whose symbol was the crescent moon.

          Unlike the Biblical prophets and kings, Muhammad was illiterate and his words were transcribed by others. Because he could neither read nor write, he learned what little he knew about Christianity from talking to Greeks living in Arabia and he learned a little about the Bible from talking to Jews.  It is obvious from the Qur'an that he really didn't know much about either religion and many points were remembered incorrectly.

          When he conquered Mecca with his army, he removed the idols from the Kaaba and commanded that only his family god, Allah, was to be worshipped. However, he retained many of the pagan rituals, such as circling the Kaaba seven times, kissing the black meteorite stone, throwing stones at a devil god and use of the crescent moon symbol. "In fact, for generations before Mohammed was born, the Arabs worshiped some 360 pagan gods housed at a stone temple in Mecca called the Kabah. According to archaeologists, the chief deity of Mecca was the moon-god called al-ilah (meaning the god or the idol), which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. Pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave themselves: Mohammed’s father (Abdallah), for example, had Allah as part of his name." http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2352

          Unlike Abraham who worshiped in Jerusalem, Muhammad commanded that his god be worshipped in Mecca and that prayers were to be said in the direction of Mecca, even if that meant turning one's backside to Jerusalem.

          Not the name, the customs, the commandments nor the place of Muhammad's god are the same as the God of Abraham.  Not even close. 

          (This post would give me the death penalty for blasphemy under the laws in Pakistan.) tongue

          1. BuddiNsense profile image61
            BuddiNsenseposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            You forgot that tradition says that Muhammad was identified by a christian monk, Bahira when he was young and Khadija's cousin Waraka ibn Nawfal was also a christian. Yemen also had a large number of christian population. So it is wrong to assume that there were not many Christians in Arabia.

          2. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            that's quite an interesting and in some instances convincing concept. it is the first time I've heard of anything like it, and i'm sure some would love to use that blasphemy law you ... lol.

            to answer your statements, I came across the following :

            "Allah as Moon-God is a claim put forth by some critics of Islam that the Islamic name for God, Allah, derives from a pagan Moon god in local Arabic mythology. The implication is that "Allah" is a different God from the Judeo-Christian deity and that Muslims are worshipping a "false god". The claim is most associated with the Christian apologist author Robert Morey, whose book The moon-god Allah in the archeology of the Middle East is a widely cited source of the idea that Allah is a moon-god. It has also been promoted in the cartoon tracts of Jack Chick.[1] The use of a lunar calendar and the prevalence of crescent moon imagery in Islam is said to be the result of this origination.[2]

            In 2009 anthropologist Gregory Starrett wrote, "a recent survey by the Council for American Islamic Relations reports that as many as 10% of Americans believe Muslims are pagans who worship a moon god or goddess, a belief energetically disseminated by some Christian activists."[3] Islamic and Western scholars have rejected these claims, one even calling them "insulting".[4] It is argued that "Allah" is just the word for "God" in Arabic, which ultimately derives from the same root as the Hebrew words "El" and "Elohim", both used in the Book of Genesis. Sociologist Lori Peek writes that, "Allah is simply the Arabic word meaning God. In fact people who speak Arabic, be they Christians, Jews or Muslims, often say 'Allah' to describe God, just as God is called 'Gott' in German and 'Dieu' in French."[1] While other gods were certainly referred to using this epithet, this is equally true of the Hebrew words. The Biblical commandment You shall have no other gods before me uses the same word, "Elohim", to refer to the "other" gods that is used for the creator god.[5] It is also true of the English, French and other European-language words for God. Indeed the English word "God" evolved from pagan Germanic terms for invocation; the Latin word Deus, from which "Dieu" derives, can be traced to the same root as Dyeus, which gives the names of the ancient Indo-European divinities Zeus, Jove and Dyaus Pitar."

            and some more about the crescent :

            "The moon plays a significant role in Islam because of the use of a lunar Islamic calendar to determine the date of Ramadan. The crescent moon, known as Hilal, defines the start and end of Islamic months. The need to determine the precise time of the appearance of the hilal was one of the inducements for Muslim scholars to study astronomy.[11] The Quran clearly emphasises that the moon is a sign of God, not itself a god. Muslim scholars cite the 37th verse of the Sura Fussilat as proof against the Moon-God claim:[12]"

            "And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostrate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship"

            Full article here : ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god

          3. Barbara AK profile image61
            Barbara AKposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Writerfox, Right on, thanks for the write up. I did not know all that. God bless.

        2. Barbara AK profile image61
          Barbara AKposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Monkeyshine, that is only a surmise by people who are not thinking clearly. I would never call my God who is Yahweh, Allah. Allah is not my God. Yahweh is. Look at who Yahweh is and compare Him to Allah. TWO very different characteristics and too many different laws and commandments, and happenings. All of the Hindu gods are not my God either, neither is any of the pagan gods mine. All of the gods are different. How can they all be the same with only different names? Really. Think about it. As far as I am concerned there is only one God and He is Yahweh. However, He is the same as the Jewish God. They just do not believe in Jesus, which I do as I am a Christian. The name of your God is very important and identifies Him in our physical realm and in the spiritual realm. Now that I know that Allah was worshipped as the moon god, I am even more happy that I do not worship him. From what I have learned, all other gods are fallen angels, demons, disguised as gods. They want to be worshipped and people are too gullible to know because we are desperate in our finite form and vulnerability to follow even made up god and idols or demons. May Yahweh help us all to know Him.

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            you know only one side of the story... i can see you didn't read my response to writerfox therefore giving you a link here.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god

  34. jacharless profile image80
    jacharlessposted 22 months ago

    Sorry to intrude, but this might shed some light on the discussion regarding Islam, as a violent theology, and what the Islamic State has re-birthed; what this khalifa is obligated to do, why Christians [and even Orthodox Jews] should be celebrating, and a look at its end-game strategy.

    What ISIS Really Wants
    The Atlantic Magazine
    Graeme Wood, author/trib-editor
    Publication: March 2015

    1. Writer Fox profile image81
      Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      That was a good read.  Thanks for sharing the link.

      I don't know if you have the stomach for this, but here is an article about what ISIS-linked Islamic terrorists did yesterday in the recently established 'ISIS Province of Tripoli.' It shows pictures of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians who were beheaded because they were Christians.  Their blood filled the Mediterranean Sea. The pictures are from the video of the beheadings released by ISIS. The video is called "A Message signed with blood to the nation of the cross."
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … Libya.html

      1. MonkeyShine75 profile image80
        MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

        I can't watch those things because it disturbs me on a very deep level, but for those who can watch it, they should. Maybe the people in America protesting America's actions will see why they/we can't sit idly by, and allow such atrocities.

        It's so easy for them to kill, and so brutally, any American that thinks they would be safe near one of these men is wrong
        God help us all

      2. jacharless profile image80
        jacharlessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, I read this yesterday.
        And, while utterly tragic, is not surprising. Coptic Christians have faced severe treatment by their own, the Romans and Islam for centuries. I am guessing here, but it seems these Coptic, unlike others, did not convert to Islam and therefore were considered apostates, because they are Arabs, living in Egypt / Egyptian (Coptic), yet not Islamic.

        From what I have learned over the years regarding Islam, and strict Sharia, capital punishment involves three methods: beheading, stoning and amputation : of apostates and is the obligation of every Muslim to reveal an apostate.

        Interestingly, there is a New Testament quote regarding amputation, with regard to purification from sin versus not entering into the kingdom of heaven / hereafter.

        Sidebar:
        I believe it was until 1980 (?) that France [finally] stopped using beheadings (the guillotine)  as a form of capital punishment. In the States, and many other countries, gas chamber, noose-hanging, firing squad, electrocution and lethal injection are regular forms of capital punishment.

        Also, a note about the end-game strategy and direct Koranic mention of Jesus coming down and spearing the Anti-Khalifa / Dajjal which is a mirror to the Christian Letter of Revelation.

  35. Writer Fox profile image81
    Writer Foxposted 21 months ago

    One American Islamic group is active in dissuading American youth from joining ISIS terrorist groups.  As part of the effort, Imam Mohamed Magid of Sterling, Virginia, found “They were not really drawn to this on theological grounds.”

    Apparently the main attraction for people joining ISIS from democratic countries stems from a sense of alienation in their host countries, not a desire for a particular approach to Islam.  Imam Magid says the vulnerable are actively recruited over the Internet.  To me, this recruiting by ISIS  seems to have all of the hallmarks of a cult following.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/us/mu … s&_r=0

    1. arksys profile image91
      arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      some interviews I've seen of people shows that people initially did go for Islam... and they thought they were fighting for the real cause of Islam or it was the real "jihad" ... during their time in Afghanistan they realized it was more about politics and power and therefore left.

  36. MAH Russel profile image60
    MAH Russelposted 21 months ago

    Islam stands for peace. Some unlettered followers are making Islam violent to the eyes of the world's people. That's all.

  37. ShahnazPV profile image59
    ShahnazPVposted 21 months ago

    no!!never....islam is never a vilent relegion...it is only a social comment that it is a violent relegion because of its large terrorrist attacks and killing.The ones who do that are actually not real muslims.because of the fact that the society thinks that they are muslims,they think that islam is a violent relegion which only promote terrorism.But the real fact is that islam is a peaceful relegion which insist us to love others and find harmony in others happiness.If you penetrate through the deep roots of yhe history of islam,you will be able to find that islam is the solo truth and quraan is The Real Truth.most of the scientific Facts that are poved today are coded at the early ages in this holy book,This itself largely insists that islam is believing in one god and the true spirit og truth and faith

  38. ShahnazPV profile image59
    ShahnazPVposted 21 months ago

    it only says us to fight BACK, if they come to fight and destroy the truth

  39. 62
    Pravindra Khatriposted 21 months ago

    Nobody says islam is a violent religion , so am i .  but few traitors of this motherland proved the same true to far extent . they enjoy to see the pool of blood everywhere , corpses lying everywhere and peoples screaming helplessly for their lives . It is the biggest dilemma for all of us , from so many years that what  the hell they earn from all this massacre ? what mental satisfaction they peoples get after this .. Probably they and they only knows this well .But we need to sack this situation to avoid the jeopardising consequences of this untenable disaster .

    Now come to the point .. Islam is not a violent religion alike many of others does .
    but some narrow-ninded  made it the same . Today most of the militants who have been died/caught alive , belongs to Islam . 

    So Islam needs to Self introspect the things which is going wrong in their net and then things will be better

  40. Fiaz Sufi profile image80
    Fiaz Sufiposted 21 months ago

    not really, Its a peaceful religion as many other religions are. If you study a bit you will get the answer of your questions. A couple of years ago, followers of Budha (religion Bodh) have killed literally thousands of Muslims. Were they following any teaching of Budha? Similarly you could understand for Islamic teachings too.

  41. rxville profile image60
    rxvilleposted 20 months ago

    Just don't judge or blame the religion.. I've two religions in my family Muslim and Christian but we're live in harmony.

    1. BuddiNsense profile image61
      BuddiNsenseposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Christianity sats muhammad is a false prophet and islam is a Christian heresy that need to be routed out while islam says christians are mislead and needs correction. If your family live in harmony thats because they love each other not because their own religion agree.l, so in spite of religion.

      1. rxville profile image60
        rxvilleposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        LOL.. If you look for peace, then don't see the difference. All religion teaches love and peace.

        1. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          well said RX. You gave me a real example to show Buddi that it all depends on the people.

          1. BuddiNsense profile image61
            BuddiNsenseposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            There we do agree, good and bad both belongs to people not religion.

        2. BuddiNsense profile image61
          BuddiNsenseposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          All religion teaches love and peace between themselves and exclusion of other groups.
          if you look for peace look to humanity not religion.

        3. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          There are religions that teach love and peace? Which religions are those?

          1. dianetrotter profile image82
            dianetrotterposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)

            36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

            37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

          2. C.V.Rajan profile image68
            C.V.Rajanposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            It is in the curriculum of all religions. Most good teachers teach them. But the students opt to leave those portions as 'choice'! What to do?

  42. rxville profile image60
    rxvilleposted 20 months ago

    You should learn what Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Abdurrahman Wahid etc. had done for humanity instead of debating the difference of religion perspective

  43. word55 profile image84
    word55posted 20 months ago

    Any religion that does not follow God's inspired Word of the King James Bible is operating outside The Kingdom of God. It can therefore, be considered a violent religion if it ever resorts to violence in order to obtain what it desires. Like Martin Luther King Jr., I believe in non violence. It is not for us to offend any one or any people because God has said that "vengeance is mine." It has also been proven what God has said. I don't believe in offending anyone. It's un-Godly to do so. We benefit better if we pray to God for help to overcome our foes.

    1. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Why are there so many Christians that claim the KJV is the only Word of God and that the other versions are corrupted? I've come across people who actually worship it.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image88
        Disappearingheadposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Not to mention the kjv went through several editions to remove all the errors.

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Yes, lol.

    2. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Even a cursory reading of Exodus and the Law tells us that Judaism was also a violent religion. Revelation is all about murder, genocide and much letting of blood of those who don't believe. Dress it up as God's judgement if you want but then admit this is no different from the Quran.

  44. 61
    Ebby Saifposted 20 months ago

    It's all based on the person who claims to be following the religion. If the person is peaceful by nature then they will work hard on maintaining that way of life. On the other hand, if the person is aggressive by nature then they will try to manipulate his/her own mind as well as others' to justify their wrong-doing of others. Once a person makes up their mind about what satisfies their nature, they will begin to translate such books in a way where it best feeds their desires; peaceful or wicked.
    I personally believe that such books whether it be the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran were not meant for the destruction of mankind.

  45. 60
    Ack Taneposted 19 months ago

    It cannot be violent to accept the will of God for it is done entirely inside the mind.

    1. BuddiNsense profile image61
      BuddiNsenseposted 19 months ago in reply to this

      Provided you know what the "will of god" is.

  46. Jane Err profile image78
    Jane Errposted 19 months ago

    Islam of today is a violent, unforgiving and intolerant religion.  Ask the people who have been stoned, set on fire, shot, maimed, thrown from tall buildings....all in the name of that religion.  IF it is supposed to be a religion of peace, it certainly hasn;t lived up to that.  Righ now.....radical Islam is the enemy of everyone.

    1. arksys profile image91
      arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

      I will have to disagree with you here.

      You are judging a religion based on the followers and not its teachings. Yes, people are doing wrong in the name of the religion but they are not right to do so and that is not what the religion is about.

      There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. groups like ISIS are a very small minority as compared to Muslims. They are not correct in what they are doing and every other Muslim believes that. The last figure I heard of was 40,000. Let us make that 160,000 isis members. That makes it about 0.01% of the total Muslim population. Therefore, please do not think negatively about Islam because of some bad eggs. Blame the people and I will agree with you every time. Blame Islam and I will disagree with you every time.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Teachings of the Koran:

        Quran (4:89)"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

        Quran(5:33)"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

        Quran(8:12)"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

        The teachings of Islam seem pretty violent to me.

        1. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          There is a difference between voilent teachings and violent stories. I can paste 100 more verses like the ones you have pasted. it still does not make it a violent religion. Every action taken was either in defence or retaliation to show the enemy we are not weak and will not be walked over. You are focussing only on the actions of the muslims in the stories. You don't look at what the people were doing to the muslims at the time. Look at both sides of the story then judge without bias.

          1. BuddiNsense profile image61
            BuddiNsenseposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            How do "loving people" get enemies? It's because they wanted power that they got enemies.

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              your sentence doesn't make much sense to me... plz rephrase.

              1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                BuddiNsenseposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                It is because the first Muslims were after power and land that they got enemies. They created the enemies and then justified killing them because they are enemies.

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  Not true... they could not pray in the open in mecca until Umar accepted Islam. They were under attack from day 1.

                  1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                    BuddiNsenseposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    What else do you expect? Mecca was not muslims property but was the property of the pagan Bedouin.
                    Imagine your son suddenly started abusing you and your neighbors saying that whatever you do is false and you are going to suffer hell and all. You might put up because it is your son but what about your neighbors? And the neighbors in question are not Harvard or Oxford educated gentleman but nature hardened people of the steppe. The muslims suddenly started a new faith and wanted the local people to accept them and give mecca to mulisms, if you were a pagan then, would you have agreed?
                    Muslims wanted their place and want the pagans to ether accept them or be dead, that is they created enemies out of the pagans and then justified killing them because they are enemies.

  47. Writer Fox profile image81
    Writer Foxposted 19 months ago

    Why are Muslims killing Muslims in Pakistan?  How do you explain this to the world?
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/13/asia/ … index.html

    1. arksys profile image91
      arksysposted 19 months ago in reply to this

      As horrible as it is we are still dealing with the consequences of the war on terror. I have explained this in great detail before... I was not joking when I told you that Peshawar was not going to be the last of the attacks in Pakistan.

  48. Jane Err profile image78
    Jane Errposted 19 months ago

    I don't care who started what first, Muslims all over the world are giving themselves a bad name.  I never felt any animosity towards them until fairly recently and I honestly can't stand any of them.  You defend this blatant murder of all kinds of people all over the world by defending these creeps.  Why don't you stand up against them and if enough "good, tolerant Muslims" do this maybe, just maybe the vicious idiocy will stop.  If you keep defending them, there won't be anyone who will want a Muslim in their country.  I don't....not any more.

  49. Jane Err profile image78
    Jane Errposted 19 months ago

    YUP....it's violent.....how can you keep defending it?

  50. arksys profile image91
    arksysposted 18 months ago

    The treaty was broken first.
    Then the 3 options were given.
    Sohail refused to agree to the terms in the truce. (From the Hadith)
    Then the treaty was dissolved.

    He did not break the treaty.

    1. BuddiNsense profile image61
      BuddiNsenseposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      That part didn't say a thing about the women but only about allied tribes. And I quoted Bukhari one of the standard and it says two women came and Muhammad refused to give the women back as per the treaty.
      "Muslim commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali considers that the treaty had already been violated, probably by an attack by the Quraysh-allied tribe of Banu Bakr upon the Muslim tribe of Banu Khuza'a. Thus he believed that divine instruction was needed on what was to be done with migrants from Mecca.[6] Other Muslim sources state that the treaty's restrictions only applied to free men, and not to slaves or women."  Safi ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakfuri. "Al-Hudaibiyah Treaty." http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=461  Wikipedia
      Aftermath is the event you describe, otherwise war would have come earlier and women later which will have no relevance as treaty is already broken.
      It was Muhammad who first broke it.
      And I see that you are refusing to answer the rest of the points.

 
working