• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
J2hapydna said:
In Saudi Arabia my guess is 15 % are Shia. So a significant number of Saudis don't even believe in the books of the Sharia that many westerners think define Islam. In Yemen there is a civil War raging between Zaidis and wahabis (both are Sunni, but don't have the exact same books). So 50% believe in different leaders and different books in Yemen. In Iraq the Shia are a majority so don't believe in the sharia books.

Similarly, Islam in Ethiopia is Sunni, but evolved separately from the Arabs under a different figure, Najashi rather than Umayyads. so different, even though the books are the same

Similarly Sufi Islam has historically been very popular among people of Pakistan and India. In addition, rationalists such as Sir Syed became very powerful figures in India too. There is also 5-10% of Muslims in India and Pakistan are Shia

Unfortunately, after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan it became financially lucrative to join the violent jihadis and wage war on the Russians. The west looked the other way as Saudis radicalized the Muslim world by pumping million of dollars and encouraged the demonizing of non Muslims in newly opened schools (madrasas) so they would seek martyrdom in OUR fight against the Russians. Those who opposed the war on religious grounds and sought peace were socially and economically marginalized.

Once that war was won the propaganda continued and began to target other non Muslims such as Jews and Christians.

Then, there is Iran which is mostly Shia. So they don't believe in the Sharia books.

Then there is Turkey, Sunni with the same books, but Hanafi Turkish leaders (Caliphs) modified Sunni laws in the age of the Ottomans. So different. Sufi Islam is also very common in Turkey.
Click to expand...
Is there reason to believe Shia islam is more tolerant to people of other faith and non-believers than Sunni islam? Let us begin with the basics. Most schools of Islam believe in some sort of Islamic law. What, according to these Islamic law, should be done with those who
1) recant islam and deconvert?
2 ) Criticize islam from their own faith perspective?

Please link and reference. Which school of islam. What is the official position according to this school.

Thank you.
 
Notanumber

Notanumber

A Free Man
J2hapydna said:
Islam is a Din which is bigger than the western idea of a religion. The concept of Din doesn't really exist in the west. So many westerners try to fit Islam into a box in which it really doesn't fit. In realiy Islam is not a single religion, but a collection of several religions or madhabs and even sharias, some more peaceful than others. It has always been this way from the beginning since the days of Muhammad the prophet (MP)

Islam is really a family of religions not a single religion. For example Islam doesn't have a Pope like figure. Similarly, all Muslims don't believe in the same books of sharia. However, a religion by definition has to unify around the same books or a unifying figure. Once westerners recognize this reality about Islam they can discuss Islam more reasonably. Otherwise they end up feeding the trolls in my opinion
Click to expand...

If Islam is about submission to Allah, Islamists have no choice but to comply or face the consequences.

Myth: Islam is a Democracy
 
rharris001

rharris001

New Member
We have to be for real here. We should also speak truthfully about the state of religion, period. Which ones are innocent? At least among the major three: Christianity, Islam and Judaism all are guilty of committing gross crimes against the human family. Christianity is probably more blood-guilty than the others. From within it we have seen the Transatlantic Slave Trade, The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, The Salem Witch Hunts, the dropping of two atomic bombs, shock and awe campaigns upon people of color in the world and the taking of countless of innocent lives. War-mongerers and hypocritical. I mention this because Christianity points fingers at other religions - usually Islam - and associates them with terrorism. Well, terrorism is relative and also in the eye of the beholders and recipients. I am sure that the recipients of the atomic bomb were in "terror." Christianity is not innocent before God and it is not as chaste as the people in the so-called Christian nations portrays it. In a world so full of religion, it is a very dangerous place to live. It is very possible that God is not with any of them.
 
J

J2hapydna

Active Member
sayak83 said:
Is there reason to believe Shia islam is more tolerant to people of other faith and non-believers than Sunni islam? Let us begin with the basics. Most schools of Islam believe in some sort of Islamic law. What, according to these Islamic law, should be done with those who
1) recant islam and deconvert?
2 ) Criticize islam from their own faith perspective?

Please link and reference. Which school of islam. What is the official position according to this school.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

In my opinion no, there is no particular reason to think Shia Islam is more tolerant than Sunni Islam. If there are differences they are probably minor in my opinion. There are tolerant and intolerant versions in both.

As far as Islamic law is concerned, MP and Najashi didn't create any legal system or state religion for the Axumite empire. There also wasnt a formal system created in Mecca or Medina by MP when he was alive. Yes, The Umayyads adopted a modified Justinian code possibly because that system pre existed in Roman Empire. I'm not sure how much MP contributed to its creation as he was already dead at the time. It was a good effort by people coming from the desert who hadn't been Muslims for all that long (compared to Najashi).

When did Abu Suffiyan, Muawiyya and Yazid adopt Islam? Do you have any idea? Also under what circumstances did they convert?
 
Kirran

Kirran

ॐ
Premium Member
J2hapydna said:
In Saudi Arabia my guess is 15 % are Shia. So a significant number of Saudis don't even believe in the books of the Sharia that many westerners think define Islam. In Yemen there is a civil War raging between Zaidis and wahabis (both are Sunni, but don't have the exact same books). So 50% believe in different leaders and different books in Yemen. In Iraq the Shia are a majority so don't believe in the sharia books.
Click to expand...

One quick point - Zaidis are Shi'ites, they're just different from the Imamis, which dominate Iran, and Ismailis, who are significant in various parts of South Asia, as well as the various Ghulat groups.

Another - what do you mean by sharia books, exactly?
 
Last edited:
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
J2hapydna said:
In my opinion no, there is no particular reason to think Shia Islam is more tolerant than Sunni Islam. If there are differences they are probably minor in my opinion. There are tolerant and intolerant versions in both.

As far as Islamic law is concerned, MP and Najashi didn't create any legal system or state religion for the Axumite empire. There also wasnt a formal system created in Mecca or Medina by MP when he was alive. Yes, The Umayyads adopted a modified Justinian code possibly because that system pre existed in Roman Empire. I'm not sure how much MP contributed to its creation as he was already dead at the time. It was a good effort by people coming from the desert who hadn't been Muslims for all that long (compared to Najashi).

When did Abu Suffiyan, Muawiyya and Yazid adopt Islam? Do you have any idea? Also under what circumstances did they convert?
Click to expand...
I am a non-Muslim and I do not know enough of Islamic history to comment on any of this.And frankly it is not needed. If you look at the polls majority of Muslims in majority of nations (except Turkey and post USSR states) favor Shariah as the law of the land in their country. (LINK). So
1) What are the major schools of Shariah and what do they tell about what to do with people who deconvert from Islam, are atheists and/or criticize Islam?
2) Which schools of Islam exist today that do not believe that there is something like a divine sanctioned Islamic law (i.e. Shariah).

Are you a Muslim? Which school of Islam do you belong to?
 
Kirran

Kirran

ॐ
Premium Member
sayak83 said:
2) Which schools of Islam exist today that do not believe that there is something like a divine sanctioned Islamic law (i.e. Shariah).
Click to expand...

Those movements within Islam which are in favour of secularism tend to be non-denominational or trans-denominational. So one can't point to X denomination.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Sakeenah said:
Islamic history isn't reliable anymore?how convenient..
Click to expand...

Yes as a lot of was created centuries after the event.

Michael Bonner a scholar of Islamic studies and professor at the University of Michigan said something interesting.

“Many of these modern arguments over historiography, and over the rise of Islam and the origins of jihad more generally, began in the nineteenth and the earlier twentieth centuries among European academic specialists in the study of the East, often referred to as the orientalists.”He goes on to note that the motivation of these arguments cannot be disconnected from “their involvement in the colonial project.
Click to expand...

Do note that your first three sources are from the time and used said methods Bonner is talking about. Bonner's point, if you actually bothered to read the source itself, is attacking the very methods I was pointing out. Texts were considered more reliable than warranted.



Michael David. Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 16.
Click to expand...

That wasn't in the book. You read a review of the book nothing more. This is obvious while the inclusion of "He goes on to note that the motivation of these arguments cannot be disconnected from “their involvement in the colonial project." Which is 3rd person not first.

My post that you quoted before was part of a discussion with @A Greased Scotsman on the presecution of muslims in the meccan time period.So yes talking about events that didn't happened in that time period is not relevant for this particular discussion.
Click to expand...

No you changed it to mean specific events in Mecca. Scotman was talking about Meccans in general as part of the Islamic narrative that they were intolerant for no reason.
 
J

J2hapydna

Active Member
Kirran said:
One quick point - Zaidis are Shi'ites, they're just different from the Imamis, which dominate Iran, and Ismailis, who are significant in various parts of South Asia, as well as the various Ghulat groups.

Another - what do you mean by sharia books, exactly?
Click to expand...

They are Hanafi- a Sunni a madhab. However, politically they believe Ali should have been the caliph.
 
Last edited:
Kirran

Kirran

ॐ
Premium Member
J2hapydna said:
They are Hanafi- a Sunni a madhab. However, politically they believe Ali should have been the caliph.
Click to expand...

No, they're Shi'ites, not Sunnis. Their fiqh is similar to the Hanafi madhhab, and they've had connections with its shaykhs in the past, but they are avowedly Shi'ites.

Every Muslim believes Ali should have been caliph.

The differences are that Shi'ites, such as the Zaydis, believe that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were not rightly guided as Ali was. They also hold to the other defining belief of the Shi'ites, namely the Imamah. They differ from the Twelvers in believing that the Imams were fallible, and in having a more open opinion regarding the hereditary succession.
 
J

J2hapydna

Active Member
Kirran said:
Got nothing on Bacha Khan ;)
Click to expand...
except SAK was the founder of Aligargh University where influential Muslims such Liaqat Ali attended college. Also, he has a $50million memorial in the heart of Islamabad, capital of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to his name.
 
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
J2hapydna said:
Similar to Sir Syed- a secular non denominational rationalist Muslim from India.
Click to expand...
Cool. A modernist reformist tradition of Islam is certainly possible (as in Judaism and Christianity) , but that is not to say that the traditionalist majority in all sects do not have sufficient exegetical grounds in Quran, Hadith and Sunnah to stick to the traditional schools of law and interpretation. The usual way to create one's interpretation of Islam is to do an extensive exegesis of Quran, Sunnah, Hadith and the work of previous commentators and build through it your particular stance. I have not seen much of that among the more secular reformist schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top