What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

[Shad]

Here you appear to be trying to change the subject by copying and pasting irrelevant information from some less than reliable website without any real understanding.

While you bring up points never mentioned nor endorsed by people you reply to. Hilarious

 

[gnostic]

From your posts I get the distinct feeling that you didn't grow up in a Christian, Jewish or Muslim household even if you live in Australia. So perhaps this explains why you don't always pick up on points that most Jews and Christians would instinctively - Jew named Slave of Allah, really? LOL

The name "Allah" simply mean "God" and "Lord", which is the same as meaning to the Hebrew "El" or "Elohim" or the Aramaic "Elah". They all mean "God".

Aramaic was the most widely spoken language in the Middle East between 7th century BCE and 2nd century CE, including in Judaea in Jesus' time.

But if go back further in time, before the Iron Age Hebrews (Israelites), they got the names El and Elohim, from the Bronze Age Canaanite deity, named "El", who was a head of the Canaanite pantheon.

And going back even further, the most popular Semitic deities were the Akkadian-Babylonian religion, where their cult has spread as far west as the kingdoms of Egypt and the Hittite.

My point is that the Canaanite El come directly from the Babylonian Ellil, which come from non-Semitic Sumerian Enlil. Both Enlil and Ellil means "God".

My point is that a Jew living in Arabia, speaking Arabic, would use Allah instead of Hebrew El, even when they are naming their child.

And if you know anything about the history of the Arabs, you would know that current Arabic alphabets that are the same as that of alphabets in Muhammad's time, didn't exist before 3rd century CE. There are older Arabic scripts, known as the South Arabic languages, the alphabet scripts don't look anything like those used in Muhammad's time.

The oldest evidences of South Arabic texts are only 9th century BCE. No "Allah" appear in these earliest of Arabic writings.

When Christians first began to preach to the Arabs, centuries before Muhammad, when they spoke of god in the gospels, they would have used Allah instead of El, Yahweh or Jehovah.

Again, you are being very provincial with history.

 

[curious_mind]

I had a read through parts of this thread, very interesting stuff and also very misinformed.

Someone on the first page posted Islam is not a religion of peace the Quran contains verses about war and the Bible does not. It was a member called Rival and his exact quote is this:

"The Christian Scriptures (NT), as much as I dislike them, make no calls to violence and Jesus rebukes Peter for cutting off a Roman soldier's slave's ear and he heals the ear. These are the soldiers taking him to Pilate to be crucified."

He seems pretty smart because he does narrow it down to the new testament lol

The Gospel according to Matthew - "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Romans - "For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

I could carry on of course.

Now, the point here is not that the Bible is ONLY about war and killing and swords but also that sometimes fighting is necessary, is it is to bring about peace and justice and to end tyranny.

As Martin Luther King said, "Peace is nor merely the absence of violence but also the presence of justice."

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I had a read through parts of this thread, very interesting stuff and also very misinformed.

Someone on the first page posted Islam is not a religion of peace the Quran contains verses about war and the Bible does not. It was a member called Rival and his exact quote is this:

Just FYI, Rival is a woman

 

[gnostic]

I had a read through parts of this thread, very interesting stuff and also very misinformed.

Someone on the first page posted Islam is not a religion of peace the Quran contains verses about war and the Bible does not. It was a member called Rival and his exact quote is this:

"The Christian Scriptures (NT), as much as I dislike them, make no calls to violence and Jesus rebukes Peter for cutting off a Roman soldier's slave's ear and he heals the ear. These are the soldiers taking him to Pilate to be crucified."

He seems pretty smart because he does narrow it down to the new testament lol

The Gospel according to Matthew - "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Romans - "For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

I could carry on of course.

Of course, you could carry on, but you are ignoring one simple fact:

Muhammad actually started most of the armed conflicts, the wars, and he build a large army of armed warriors by the time he marched into Mecca.
Jesus had no army and armed warriors, fought no battles, rob no merchants.​

He started the war against Mecca, with repeated raids and looting on merchant caravans, from 623-624. He started the conflicts with each Jewish tribe in Medina, robbing their the Banu Qaynupa of lands and wealth, had men of Banu Qurayza beheaded who didn't converted the women and children either taken as slaves or sold as ones, in 630. He laid siege to Ta'if 630, and forced the townspeople forcibly converted, as revenge for not giving him refuge in 622. And he started war with the Byzantines (battle of Mu'tah, 629), when he enter Byzantine's ally's land.

And after Muhammad's death, the Muslim armies began invading lands outside of the Arabian peninsula, building empires by invading Byzantine Syria and Sassanid Persia. Before the end of the century (7th century), Muslims even fought among themselves.

In comparison, neither Jesus, nor any of his disciples ever commanded armed forces. Nor did any 1st century Christian army (which never existed in this time) fought any battle or war.

What happened when Jesus was arrested, the company of 12 apostles, only had 2 swords. Two persons with swords don't amount to an army. Only an idiot would think Jesus has an army.

The scriptures from both the gospels and the Qur'an, when they talk of war or peace, are mere words. It is action taken that show who is more peaceful and who is more warlike or aggressive.

Jesus represented peace more than Muhammad ever did. Muhammad was more like a warlord than a peacemaker.

And Jesus never intimidated people into converting with show of arms, which Muhammad did with the Banu Qurayza (630) and with Ta'if (630).

Peace and war come from actions, not just words:

• Muhammad commanded an army, Jesus didn't.
• Muhammad's followers fought battle, Jesus' followers didn't. Muhammad and his raiders robbed merchants (623-624), Jesus' followers didn't.
• Muhammad sold captives as slaves, Jesus didn't.

It is clear from your prophet's own actions that showed Islam is not a religion of peace.

 

[J2hapydna]

The name "Allah" simply mean "God" and "Lord", which is the same as meaning to the Hebrew "El" or "Elohim" or the Aramaic "Elah". They all mean "God".

You are conflating illah and Allah when they are not the same words in Arabic. (Straw man)


From there you extrapolate that Arabic speaking Jews would have called themselves worshippers of Allah rather than illah instead of El.

It's hilarious, how you insist there were Jews with the name Slave of Allah because they spoke Arabic, when there is a perfectly good word in Arabic for god (illah) and there have been no Jews named Slave of Lord Jesus Christ in the last 2,000 years who spoke English or any European language. So what is your motive? So you can prove that the story MP ordering the assassination of Jews was true in a text of tales written by scholars in the age of the Umayyads that contradict history on kinds of levels? However this doesn't seem ethnocentric (provincial) to you LOL

 

[curious_mind]

Of course, you could carry on, but you are ignoring one simple fact:

Muhammad actually started most of the armed conflicts, the wars, and he build a large army of armed warriors by the time he marched into Mecca.
Jesus had no army and armed warriors, fought no battles, rob no merchants.​

I deleted the rest of your post and am only quoting this section because we have to start at A before we get to Z.

First off, if you are claiming to know Islamic history then you can not claim falsely that Prophet Muhammad PBUH started any war. It was the pagan Arabs of Makkah, in particular the powerful Quraysh, who tortured and even murdered the Muslim population, to such an extent (after several food boycotts as well) that the Prophet ordered the first migration (to AByssinia)and then the second to Madinah.

So, I ask you, how does a group that is being tortured and murdered the ones who start a war?

 

[sovietchild]

Of course, you could carry on, but you are ignoring one simple fact:

Muhammad actually started most of the armed conflicts, the wars, and he build a large army of armed warriors by the time he marched into Mecca.
Jesus had no army and armed warriors, fought no battles, rob no merchants.​

He started the war against Mecca, with repeated raids and looting on merchant caravans, from 623-624. He started the conflicts with each Jewish tribe in Medina, robbing their the Banu Qaynupa of lands and wealth, had men of Banu Qurayza beheaded who didn't converted the women and children either taken as slaves or sold as ones, in 630. He laid siege to Ta'if 630, and forced the townspeople forcibly converted, as revenge for not giving him refuge in 622. And he started war with the Byzantines (battle of Mu'tah, 629), when he enter Byzantine's ally's land.

And after Muhammad's death, the Muslim armies began invading lands outside of the Arabian peninsula, building empires by invading Byzantine Syria and Sassanid Persia. Before the end of the century (7th century), Muslims even fought among themselves.

In comparison, neither Jesus, nor any of his disciples ever commanded armed forces. Nor did any 1st century Christian army (which never existed in this time) fought any battle or war.

What happened when Jesus was arrested, the company of 12 apostles, only had 2 swords. Two persons with swords don't amount to an army. Only an idiot would think Jesus has an army.

The scriptures from both the gospels and the Qur'an, when they talk of war or peace, are mere words. It is action taken that show who is more peaceful and who is more warlike or aggressive.

Jesus represented peace more than Muhammad ever did. Muhammad was more like a warlord than a peacemaker.

And Jesus never intimidated people into converting with show of arms, which Muhammad did with the Banu Qurayza (630) and with Ta'if (630).

Peace and war come from actions, not just words:

• Muhammad commanded an army, Jesus didn't.
• Muhammad's followers fought battle, Jesus' followers didn't. Muhammad and his raiders robbed merchants (623-624), Jesus' followers didn't.
• Muhammad sold captives as slaves, Jesus didn't.

It is clear from your prophet's own actions that showed Islam is not a religion of peace.

I knew that Muhammad raised money to buy slaves in order to set them free. However though, I didn't know about him selling slaves, unless you are chatting about captured soldiers.

 

[gnostic]

You are conflating illah and Allah when they are not the same words in Arabic. (Straw man)

You talk of "straw man" and you use the word "straw-man" on me, but you clearly don't know how to use "straw man". I don't think you even know what "straw man" argument is.

Straw man is an argument made by one person where he (or she) invent something that an opponent said or write about, but the opponent did not really say and about.

I have made no claims that Jews were polytheists. You have repeatedly in past replies to me say I wrote that. You wrote of stuff that I didn't write about.

The only person on this thread, that I see who keeps on using straw man is you, J2hapydna.

To show you a classic example of what is straw man argument is, who use it, read your most recent reply to me, especially the part where I highlighted in bold and red:

It's hilarious, how you insist there were Jews with the name Slave of Allah because they spoke Arabic, when there is a perfectly good word in Arabic for god (illah) and there have been no Jews named Slave of Lord Jesus Christ in the last 2,000 years who spoke English or any European language.

When did I ever stated that Jews were "slaves" to "Lord Jesus Christ"?
When did I ever implied Jews worship Jesus?​

The answers to both questions are "Never".

You are making false statements about things that I didn't say. You are the one who keep putting words into my mouth.

For one, I wouldn't make the mistake of claiming or even implying that Jews worship Jesus. Jews don't follow Jesus, not unless they were Christian converts.

And the Banu Qaynupa, Banu Qurayza and the Banu Nadir of Medina are not Christians, so they don't follow Jesus.

To people who do follow the religion Judaism, Jews don't accept Jesus as their messiah. Jews recognised that Christians see Jesus as their messiah, but Jesus was never messiah to the Jews.

I would never make mistake of saying Jews were "Slaves of Lord Jesus Christ". Jews don't follow Jesus; they (Jews) are not Christians. You are putting your words in my mouth.

And that's another thing, another "straw man". I have never referred to Jesus as "Lord Jesus Christ" in the whole time (11 years) that I have been a member at RF (Religious Forums).

Most frequently, I would just call Jesus just "Jesus", less frequently I would call him "Jesus Christ".

BUT NEVER EVER have I use the word "Lord" to prefix to "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ". I have never called Jesus "Lord Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ", because (A) it is a mouthful and it doesn't roll off my tongue naturally, and (B) I am agnostic, not a Christian.

You have repeatedly accused me of saying things that I didn't say. You are the one who is using straw man, not me.

 

[gnostic]

I knew that Muhammad raised money to buy slaves in order to set them free. However though, I didn't know about him selling slaves, unless you are chatting about captured soldiers.

Jesus never bought slaves, nor take war captives as slaves.

The merchants he and his followers had raided and robbed were sold as slaves. Muhammad didn't free them, he had profited from their captivity.

The women and children of Banu Qurayza were sold as slaves. He only free what he personally owned.

When Muhammad came to Medina in 622, he was landless and his only properties were what he could carry with him form Mecca.

What did he do not long after he arrived in Medina?

He gathered a band of his followers, and for 2 years, between 623 and 624, he raided and robbed at least a dozen different merchant caravans. He replenished his wealth and wealth of his Muslim followers by robbing others or selling merchants and their guards as slaves.

Have you heard of Jesus raiding and robbing traders? I haven't.

Have you ever heard Jesus holding merchants as hostages for ransoms, or selling them as slaves? I haven't heard Jesus ever doing either.

But Muhammad not only did, he also condone it; Muhammad condone robbing people, demanding ransoms and trading people as slaves, because he is leader who did those things.

 

[sovietchild]

Jesus never bought slaves, nor take war captives as slaves.

The merchants he and his followers had raided and robbed were sold as slaves. Muhammad didn't free them, he had profited from their captivity.

The women and children of Banu Qurayza were sold as slaves. He only free what he personally owned.

When Muhammad came to Medina in 622, he was landless and his only properties were what he could carry with him form Mecca.

What did he do not long after he arrived in Medina?

He gathered a band of his followers, and for 2 years, between 623 and 624, he raided and robbed at least a dozen different merchant caravans. He replenished his wealth and wealth of his Muslim followers by robbing others or selling merchants and their guards as slaves.

Have you heard of Jesus raiding and robbing traders? I haven't.

Have you ever heard Jesus holding merchants as hostages for ransoms, or selling them as slaves? I haven't heard Jesus ever doing either.

But Muhammad not only did, he also condone it; Muhammad condone robbing people, demanding ransoms and trading people as slaves, because he is leader who did those things.

Whats with you and Jesus? How about Moses? Didn't he fought wars?

 

[gnostic]

I deleted the rest of your post and am only quoting this section because we have to start at A before we get to Z.

First off, if you are claiming to know Islamic history then you can not claim falsely that Prophet Muhammad PBUH started any war. It was the pagan Arabs of Makkah, in particular the powerful Quraysh, who tortured and even murdered the Muslim population, to such an extent (after several food boycotts as well) that the Prophet ordered the first migration (to AByssinia)and then the second to Madinah.

So, I ask you, how does a group that is being tortured and murdered the ones who start a war?

If it is true, it was wrong for Meccans to persecute Muhammad and his followers. But persecution isn't equal to war.

And I have only of one death of one Muslim before Muhammad fled from Makkah in 622, not a whole population of murders.

War only started when Muhammad began robbing at least a dozen Meccan merchant caravans. That's what started a war.

Muhammad could have left Mecca alone, once he and his followers settled in Medina. Muhammad didn't. He sought revenge, and began to take action when he started raiding and robbing those traders' caravans.

Also, before arrived at Medina, as refugees, Muhammad sought refuge at Ta'if in 622, but the leaders of Ta'if refused to accept them as refugees. Ta'if didn't attack Muslims; Ta'if didn't start a war with Muslims.

But after Mecca surrender in 630, the first town Muhammad attack in his campaign in Arabia, was Ta'if.

Muhammad initiated the war with Ta'if, not Ta'if with Muhammad.

You don't understand your own history, curious_mind.

 

[gnostic]

Whats with you and Jesus? How about Moses? Didn't he fought wars?

You should keep the exchanges of replies, sovietchild.

I didn't bring up Jesus first; curious_mind did.

This thread is about Islam being a "religion of peace", not about Judaism, not about Christianity.

curious_mind wrote this:

I had a read through parts of this thread, very interesting stuff and also very misinformed.

Someone on the first page posted Islam is not a religion of peace the Quran contains verses about war and the Bible does not. It was a member called Rival and his exact quote is this:

"The Christian Scriptures (NT), as much as I dislike them, make no calls to violence and Jesus rebukes Peter for cutting off a Roman soldier's slave's ear and he heals the ear. These are the soldiers taking him to Pilate to be crucified."

He seems pretty smart because he does narrow it down to the new testament lol

The Gospel according to Matthew - "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

curious_mind quoted passage in gospel of Matthew about Jesus say he was there to bring peace but war.

Except that Jesus had no army, and he had fought no battle.

curious_mind had also brought up Peter cutting a ear from one of the guards who came to arrest Jesus. Jesus healed the guard, and accepted being arrested without resistance.

But this wasn't a battle or war. One action of one man (Peter) is not a battle.

Not long after Jesus was arrested, he was crucified, but according to all four gospels, he returned alive, resurrected.

At no point in Jesus' very short ministry in Galilee and Judaea did he lead armed soldiers into battles.

And none of Jesus' closest followers, the 12 apostles, commanded any army or lead them to wars, after Jesus was gone.

Muhammad did turn his followers into warriors, lead them into battles. When Muhammad died, Muhammad's closest companions and disciples had attacked Byzantine province Syria, and then invaded Sassanid Persia. An empire grew because Muslim army invaded lands outside of Arabia.

It is their actions (Muhammad's and Jesus') that define if one of these two men were "man of peace" or "man of war".

Then look at the 1st century and 7th century, and of those two periods, did Jesus' followers or Muhammad's followers fought in battles?

I didn't bring up Moses, because curious-mind didn't mention Moses. I didn't try to change subject on curious-mind because he did bring up Jesus, so I only talk about Jesus and Muhammad.

But apparently you want to change the subject on me, by bringing Moses into the picture.

 

[J2hapydna]

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen

1. 1.
   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
   "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

 

[gnostic]

I find that Muhammad to be a hypocrite, when he say it is wrong for Meccans to send assassins after him, when it is okay for him to send two assassins to murder two Jewsin 624.

This is hardly an action of "man of peace".

 

[sovietchild]

You should keep the exchanges of replies, sovietchild.

I didn't bring up Jesus first; curious_mind did.

This thread is about Islam being a "religion of peace", not about Judaism, not about Christianity.

curious_mind wrote this:



curious_mind quoted passage in gospel of Matthew about Jesus say he was there to bring peace but war.

Except that Jesus had no army, and he had fought no battle.

curious_mind had also brought up Peter cutting a ear from one of the guards who came to arrest Jesus. Jesus healed the guard, and accepted being arrested without resistance.

But this wasn't a battle or war. One action of one man (Peter) is not a battle.

Not long after Jesus was arrested, he was crucified, but according to all four gospels, he returned alive, resurrected.

At no point in Jesus' very short ministry in Galilee and Judaea did he lead armed soldiers into battles.

And none of Jesus' closest followers, the 12 apostles, commanded any army or lead them to wars, after Jesus was gone.

Muhammad did turn his followers into warriors, lead them into battles. When Muhammad died, Muhammad's closest companions and disciples had attacked Byzantine province Syria, and then invaded Sassanid Persia. An empire grew because Muslim army invaded lands outside of Arabia.

It is their actions (Muhammad's and Jesus') that define if one of these two men were "man of peace" or "man of war".

Then look at the 1st century and 7th century, and of those two periods, did Jesus' followers or Muhammad's followers fought in battles?

I didn't bring up Moses, because curious-mind didn't mention Moses. I didn't try to change subject on curious-mind because he did bring up Jesus, so I only talk about Jesus and Muhammad.

But apparently you want to change the subject on me, by bringing Moses into the picture.

Jesus and Moses are prophets of Islam.

 

[J2hapydna]

I have only stated that Jews living for generations in Arabia, learn to speak Arabic. I never claimed that the Jews were pagans or polytheists; you said this, not me. And I have never mistaken Jews as followers or believers of Jesus.

You have repeatedly accused the Jews of Arabia of being polytheists by suggesting they names their children, Slaves of Allah. It is not like Jews don't know what Abd-Allah means. Im pretty sure you know for example,

Ebed-Melech - All the Men of the Bible - Bible Gateway

So why would Jews name their son EBED-ALLAH?

Then you tried to suggest that ALLAH was a generic word for god in Arabic and same as EL. However we all know that ILLAH is the word for god in Arabic not ALLAH. Now go look at the definition of straw man and see if you can figure out what you did.

Finally, you expressed hate of Judaism by suggesting that Jews use religious names from other religions when they live among them. There are no examples of Jews doing any such thing in the last 2,000 years. For examples Jews have lived among Christians for the last 2,000 but never named their son Slave of Lord Jesus etc. So why would they name them Slave of Allah?

 

[gnostic]

Jesus and Moses are prophets of Islam.

I know that's what the Muslims, but what's your point?

Curious_mind brought up Jesus, not Moses, so I compare Muhammad with Jesus.

Curious_mind had also quoted Matthew, but Jesus never lead warriors to fight battles, Muhammad did.

Jesus' closest companions and disciples (e.g. Peter, John, Philip) were never warriors, never lead them into battles.

Can the same be said of Muhammad's companions and disciples, Abu Bakr, Umar ibn Khattab, Khalid ibn al-Walid? Not long after Muhammad's death, Persia (633) and Syria (633-634), sending armies to these two regions.

Neither Byzantine empire, nor Sassanid empire had declared wars on Muslims. Muslims attacked first. After that the armies hit Egypt (639) and part of Libya

And the only reason Islam spread so quickly because Muslims invaded these countries first.

If Islam is a religion of peace, then why does it need armies? Why do they need to invade?

Islam is a great hypocrisy whenever they claimed "peace" is their major goal. Forcing other nations to submit Islam with swords or guns, is using fear and intimidation, not peace.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus' closest companions and disciples (e.g. Peter, John, Philip) were never warriors, never lead them into battles.

Jesus also didn't last as long as Muhammad. Given his bouts of vandalism and assault (with bullwhips, no less), can we really say that if Jesus survived he wouldn't start becoming more overt in his aggression?

 

[Shad]

You are conflating illah and Allah when they are not the same words in Arabic. (Straw man)

No he isn't as Allah is Biblical God not any god. What he did say is the Hebrew word is constructed from words which also mean god. God vs god.

From there you extrapolate that Arabic speaking Jews would have called themselves worshippers of Allah rather than illah instead of El.

Except there is evidence of Arabic speakers using Allah to mean God of the Bible as it is their language not Hebrew or Aramaic