"On Faith" panelist Pamela K. Taylor is co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values and director of the Islamic Writers Alliance. She is a member of the national board of advisors to the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and served as co-chair of the Progressive Muslim Union for two years. Taylor is a strong supporter of the woman imam movement, which seeks the full participation of Muslim women in every aspect of life, including the pulpit. In July 2005, she became the first woman in centuries to officiate Friday prayers in a mosque when the United Muslim Association of Toronto and the Muslim Canadian Congress invited her to serve as guest imam. (This event followed a number of services, sermons and prayer sessions led by women held in private venues because no mosque agreed to host them.) In February 2006, when the former Grand Mufti of Marseilles visited Toronto, he requested that Taylor lead him in congregational prayer as an unequivocal demonstration of his support for female imams. Taylor has also been active in interfaith dialogue for 20 years, both in local initiatives and speaking at numerous conferences, universities, and churches. She received her MTS from Harvard Divinity School, and writes regularly on spiritual matters and the Islamic faith. She has essays in Nurturing Child and Adolescent Spirituality: Perspectives from the World's Religious Traditions (2006) and the forthcoming The Veil: Women Writers on Its History, Lore, and Politics (2007). She has written hundreds of articles and opinion pieces for newspapers, magazines, and journals, and is an award winning poet.
Close.
Pamela K. Taylor
co-founder, Muslims for Progressive Values
"On Faith" panelist Pamela K. Taylor is co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values and director of the Islamic Writers Alliance. She is a member of the national board of advisors to the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and served as co-chair of the Progressive Muslim Union for two years. Taylor is a strong supporter of the woman imam movement, which seeks the full participation of Muslim women in every aspect of life, including the pulpit.
more »
I don't quite understand what giving special rights to Muslims mean and in what way Hindus are being disadvantaged. I agree that no one should be disadvantaged. But since I have no idea what exactly the special rights for Muslims and disadvantages for Hindus entails, I am unable to make any further comments.
I only think in terms of unity and peace. I attended a school for eight years in India that drilled the concept into me - patriotism and love for the diversity of Indian people - even before I met Dom Bede Griffiths who approached the issue from a spiritual perspective.
India has had 60 years to work out the "Muslim" problem but has failed. All it is doing is to hide it under the carpet by feeding the problem with gifts and sweets.
Remember that it was not the Hindus who wanted Partition but the Muslims themselves. I don't care if any particular Muslim did not want to go to Pakistan - their leaders through the Muslim League and represented by Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted it and fought for it. In the end, they got it. So I'm only asking Muslims to fulfill their side of the bargain and leave India to go live with their Muslim brothers and sisters in Pakistan. That way, problem solved.
Many thousands of Hindus who happened to live in Nothern India before the Partition also didn't want to leave their ancestral homes but were forced to leave by the Muslims. They had to give up everything so why can't the Muslims similarly do the same.
The way Muslims sit down with Hindus to discuss problems is to demand more and more 'special rights'. We Hindus are sick of giving up more and more 'special rights' to Muslims. Everyone should be equal - no special rights for anyone - because your special rights means you have disadvantaged me.
Like I said: the Muslims always take while the Hindus give. How long is this going to go on for? Time for that to stop.
I do agree that the Hindus are generally a peaceful lot and that is both the secret of the origin and fruit of the rich spiritual tradition India can boast of.
But now we have a serious problem sixty years after independence. Is escalating the hatred and violence between Hindus and Muslims the solution? Gandhi said an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Indians need to work at bringing reconciliation and harmony between Muslims and Hindus. Maybe India needs another Gandhi. India has a Muslim president. That in itself is a sign that all is not as bad as you portray it. Sending 138 million Indian Muslims to Pakistan and Bangladesh is definitely not the solution. Most Muslims who live in India wouldn't want to leave. Most of them didn't want to leave during the partition, but it was forced on them. Muslims in Kerala for instance are first of all Malayalees, very strongly attached to their culture and traditions in Kerala and they have lived in harmony with other religions for centuries. I'm sure Muslims living in other parts of India must feel the same. If any Muslim wanted to leave, who would try to stop them?
I have confidence that the problem can be tackled if Hindus and Muslims who have grievances are willing to sit down and discuss it. The great task is to encourage the Hindus and Muslims to feel the compelling need to live together in harmony for their own welfare and happiness. And I take it for granted that Indian Muslims do not want the whole country to become Muslim for such an expectation would be no more than a wild fantasy.
Victoria,
Yes I agree. When critics point out that the most authoritative Islamic sources show the behavior and character of your prophet they are aggressively misrepresenting him.
If you don't like to know that your prophet was no better than a deranged self-serving war-lord who raped and plundered all over Arabia then you claim critics are islamophobes. We didn't make up the facts about Muhammad - all these unsavory aspects of Muhammad's life are found in the Islamic records.
I don't see how you can follow such a man and believe he can be a true prophet of a true god. The behavior of Muhammad was no different to that of Hitler. In fact, Hitler was a better man because he didn't take sex slaves. Eva Braun was a willing participant in their relationship, not someone he captured and forced into a sexual relationship.
as i wrote- my point was not to argue or be questioned.
the question was answered in a previous post, take it or leave it.
i was addressing the surprisingly negative perception that soja incorrectly holds about islam.
i am willing to assume that it was not meant to be so insulting, but is purely that shes been told these falsehoods by islamophobes.
this is why we must always let the adherents speak for themselves about their own faiths.
i have strong opinions about gandhi, and hinduism- some positive and some negative observations about the actual practices of hindusim and how it manifests itself into society.
but it is not my place to criticize others- or denigrate their beliefs.
such behavior is not gracious and just bad mannered and small hearted.
i also feel compelled to address the aggressive misrepresentation of our Prophet(pbuh)
because there are others outr there who may actually believe these ugly ideas,
obviously you have a well formed hatred of islam, so i will not waste energy trying to turn your hate into reason.
if you care to be reasonable- and are truly looking for knowledge, read this link-
or not as you like.
"and that Prophet Mohammad's marriages to several women including a child"
this is not true. period.and is a very insulting thing to say.
~~~~
Which part is untrue, Victoria? The part about Muhammad's marriage to several women.
Or the part about the child? You don't think Ayesha was a child even though the sahih hadiths are in total agreement that she was nine years old? Don't tell me you believe she was a teenager or older even though that sort of apologetics have been repeatedly shown to be lies?
soja- as you explained- it is for muslims to explain.
i will start by explaining that, just as i respect when other people present their religions as they know them, and dont question every single thing they say as if they are lying- i expect the same- but never recieve this reciprocal treatment-
so im not going to post a bunch of proofs but just speak as a normal person would.
"I do not deny too that there is much violence mentioned in the Quran"
there are exponentially more calls to peace in the qur'an than violence.
when reading the qur'an, personally- i dont encounter violence very often at all- sometimes there are descriptions of events in the past.
"and that Prophet Mohammad's marriages to several women including a child"
this is not true. period.and is a very insulting thing to say.
"his method of acquiring those wives, after the death of his first wife, from the age of fifty to his death twelve years later, are not very encouraging or exemplary."
this is not true. his "acquisition" of wives were specifically exemplary examples.
"But from what I understand his followers were instructed not to do as he did with regard to polygamy. but to do as he said"
you understand incorrectly.
this is a most base and hypocritical behavior for anyone to indulge in, let alone a prophet of god.
the only difference is the number.
he was happily married and monogamous for 25 years.
"and Muslims consider whatever he did as special privileges granted to a prophet but his behaviour was not to be imitated by the ordinary human being."
his behavior is TO BE COPIED AND SEEN AS AN EXAMPLE. that is what sunnah is- the actions of Muhammad(pbuh), and we are specifically instructed to follow the qur'an AND the sunnah by the Prophet(pbuh).
this false statement would be equivalent to me saying that the actions of Jesus(ata) are not to be imitated by christians.
do you see how deeply insulted you would be by such a statement?
it is the exact opposite.
im tryng to have suspicion for the best intentions from all that i encounter here until proven wrong, so ill just assume that your perceptions of muslims is from people around you who have told you these things-
i am truly hoping it wasnt a nod and a wink to your fellow desis.
even considering that such things come even close to true, implies that islam is something it is not.
stereotypes- as im sure you well know- are rampant currently about muslims- and these are some examples of the worst stereotypes that exist, and maybe even in your case innocently propogated.
to recap- the Prophet(pbuh) was the most trustworthy and honorable of men, and the ideas put forth here greatly dishonor him.
so at the minimum i ask that the same respect given to others, also be extended to muslims.
Who is talking about punishing Muslims? I'm only asking that they respect their wish to form Pakistan for Muslims only and leave India for Pakistan.
It was their wish - their plan. They refused to allow Indian independence without having a homeland of their own. The Hindus did not want to break up India but the Muslims did. The Muslims demanded Partition. They campaigned for it. They fought for it. So what's the problem?
Please read up on what the Muslim League and the Partition.
You're basically saying that the Muslims get Pakistan (and Bangladesh) for the Muslims only but still have the right to live in India.
It is not I who assert India is only for Hindus it is the Muslims themselves under Mohammad Ali Jinnah who stated this when they pressed for Partition against Hindu wishes.
I'm only saying that if that was the plan then it should have been concluded. You can't have a plan where the Muslims get satisfaction (i.e. Pakistan is 100% Muslim) while the Hindus do not.
Either you have Partition or you don't.
I actually think highly of Gandhi but believe he was wrong on this issue. He should have stood up against the Muslims on this. Having agreed to the Partition he then campaigned to stop it because of people were killed on both sides in the inter-religious violence. So in the end, he screwed India. Note how Pakistan merrily went on expelling the Hindus regardless.
I also don't believe that there is little inter-religious strife in India. It is an everyday occurrence. The only reason that it doesn't blow up more often is because the Hindus have agreed to 'turn the other cheek' and 'accomodate' the Muslims by caving in to their sectarian demands. Muslims are a state within a state - enjoying special rights and privileges. That is not sustainable in the long-run. Hindu extremism is merely a belated reaction against Muslim aggression. If you live among Muslims you will know that they are always aggressive and aggrieved because they believe as Muslims the world belongs to them via Allah.
In short - religious harmony in India is only because the Muslims take and the Hindus give. And Muslims always take.
I noticed that I forgot one important point in my response to your post. I do agree with you that violence must be resorted to in self defence if nothing else will work. Protection of national boundaries is one example. But pre-emptive invasion of another country on the grounds that it MAY attack and call it self-defence, is absolute rubbish, for such a excuse can be used to invade any country in the world because any country may theoritically attack.
I do not deny too that there is much violence mentioned in the Quran, and that Prophet Mohammad's marriages to several women including a child, his method of acquiring those wives, after the death of his first wife, from the age of fifty to his death twelve years later, are not very encouraging or exemplary. But from what I understand his followers were instructed not to do as he did with regard to polygamy, but to do as he said and Muslims consider whatever he did as special privileges granted to a prophet but his behaviour was not to be imitated by the ordinary human being. It is for Muslims to explain the context and spiritual implication and social application of everythign in this day and age.
In regard to practice of Islam in India, how many Indians do you think have actually read the Quran and know what is written in it? Even in the Catholic Church one didn't read the Bibles as part of our normal religious life until recently. Even then, not all Catholics read the Bible as a rule. They just follow the rituals and listen to what the priest has to say, the understanding being that the average person may not fully understand what is written, or may misinterpret the context or message etc. Or whatever. When one notices how many people fail to understand the cultural life of Jews and other Christians in the first century, and are unable to understand some of the social practices mentioned in that context, and mistake social customs of the day and culture for eternal truth, one can understand why Bible reading must have been restricted to the clergy (I don't agree with the practice of course), just as the average man does not read any Hindu Scripture. So by the same token the average Indian has NOT read the Quran and has lived by the social customs of the Hindu society in India. Rulers, no matter what religion they practice, use violence in many instances to gain and maintain power. Islam as political religion is something I know nothing about. To me religion is about understanding the rules of God, the God who loves all His creation equally; religion is about the life of the spirit, and applying spiritual laws that come from God appropriately in our daily lives.
Since both of your addressed the same topic I will respond in one post.
I’m deeply disappointed that both of you seem to hold Mahatma Gandhi in such low esteem despite the fact that he united all Indians for a common purpose and was pivotal to achieving Indian independence by non-violent means, a method anyone familiar with the violence of political power tactics would have considered completely inappropriate to achieve such an ambitious political goal. His spiritually based political strategy has inspired political giants like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King and he has been an inspiration to millions around the world. Einstein said of him that in years to come it would be hard to believe that such a man as Gandhi ever walked the face of this earth. Let it be known that he was chosen as the greatest man of the past thousand years in a BBC poll in 2000, and came ahead of Jesus Christ!
I’m quite aware of the trend that many elite Indians tend to consider it their intellectual duty to have a “problem” with Gandhi as proof of their critical thinking.
Deb, the Bhagavad Gita is a spiritual guide for the Hindu householder to attain liberation/God realisation, and is NOT a “The Art of War” manual for a ruler. So Gandhi did nothing wrong in applying the Gita as he did. Although he said that his politics was the fruit of his religion, he never called himself a spiritual leader or guru. One must consider him a pious politician and not a religious leader who clamoured for political power. He proved how one could be a householder living in the world and fight for justice by peaceful means as part of one’s spiritual goal to realise God. That is after all part of Karma Yoga in the Gita. A battle that is just as effective as bombs without causing the death and destruction that bombs do, is still a battle. The fact that one wages the battle using wisdom that stems from the spiritual world doesn’t make it less of a battle. The most important fact is the success of Gandhi’s mission and the fact that it continues to inspire many people today. One can admire him for his achievements even if one doesn't agree with everything he did, nor find some of his thoughts applicable today.
I do agree however Deb, that non-violence may not work in every case. There is a time and place for weapons. The Catholic concept of "just war" answers that need for weapons in certain circumstances, and I endorse that view. For instance Hitler could not have been stopped by Gandhian methods after the outbreak of WW II. But in this age of nuclear weapons and the nature of the war technology, any war is bound to be unjust, no matter what criterion one may use.
I will continue to assert that the partition of India was politically rather than religiously motivated. Religion was merely used as a tool and ordinary people were instigated to turn into killing machines to achieve political goals. If religion had been the basis for the partition, the desire would have been expressed by the people (and why would anyone have needed a separate country based on their religion since at no time had any Muslim been prevented from practising their faith and India had been under two hundred years of colonial rule prior to Independence and not Muslim rule), and not by a political leader who stood to gain by having a separate country which he could rule, considering his chances were smaller in a Hindu majority unified India. It is important to remember that not all Muslim politicians wanted the partition either and we have had Indian Presidents and politicians since Independence, despite Muslims being a minority group in India.
It is extremely distorted overgeneralisation to claim that perpetual Hindu-Muslim strife exists all over India. Apart from the perpetual Kashmir conflict, the Hindu-Muslim conflict is restricted to certain areas and there is a parallel fundamentalist Hindu faction that is involved in the strife as well. So we find that ordinary Hindus and ordinary Muslims are not part of the strife at all. It is horrendous if the conflict is allowed to spread, rather than attempts being made to stop it, and work towards reconciliation and harmony. The best way to make any country vulnerable to forces from without, is to have internal fights. So it is in the best interests of Indian integrity as a nation to work towards Hindu-Muslim peace rather than strive for the meaningless goal of "India only for Hindus." How would any Hindu living outside India feel if every non-Hindu nation declared that they had no right to be there, because their religion was alien to the culture, Western culture for instance?
India can never be 100% Hindu, first of all because Hinduism itself is a con-federation of religions (and in the long ago past Hinduism merely meant the culture and religions of people living in the geographical location that is India once called Hindustan), rather than a single religion and India has had traditions of other religions springing from its soil from the earliest times – Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, among others. Parsis are foreign to Indian soil too, and what about Christians of 100% Indian origin, such as I am?
To me a real Hindu is a generous soul with a universal acceptance of all religious philosophies. Many great Hindu saints and religious reformers have worked very hard to contribute to such a Hindu attitude, and the rise of Hindu fundamentalism is an insult to all of them. As far as practice of Hinduism itself goes, each Hindu family seems to worship a different God and every person in the family may have their own favourite deity. Hindu fundamentalism is to me therefore NOT real Hinduism, for Hinduism has no history of waging religious wars on anyone in its entire history spanning thousands of years.
About Muslim rule, which involved great Muslim rulers and great contribution to Indian culture, not just violent ones, where do we draw the line in passing a judgement on them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
Do we punish innocent Muslims now based on what some Muslim rulers have done in the long ago past? Considering the Moghul Empire came to an end in 1707, and India was under colonial rule for nearly two hundred years before achieving Independence sixty years ago, do we punish innocent Muslims now for what Muslim rulers may have done over three hundred years ago, while of course ignoring all the great contribution to Indian culture? For example would it be fair to punish ordinary Germans three hundred years from now for what Hitler and his regime did to the Jews during WW II, to punish completely innocent people centuries later for crimes committed by their rulers?
So what exactly is the belated Hindu extremism trying to achieve? What good is going to come out of punishing innocent people for crimes committed by rulers in the long ago past, and whipping up hatred and sifting division? Haven’t the Muslims proved to be sons of the Indian soil, just like any Hindu, by fighting for Indian Independence? Haven’t they been part of India just like everyone else since Independence, and for centuries before that?
If achieving some kind of belated justice for what Muslim rulers did to Hindus in the long ago post, is what Hindu extremism is all about, what about the members of the Hindu lower castes who have suffered oppression for millennia? Who will avenge their cause and what can be done to make it up to them?
I do wish that both of you, Deb and Rajesh, would develop the generosity of spirit towards Muslims, the universal attitude that is the hallmark of Hinduism. And I am sure it can be done without condoning any wrong doing on anyone's part, both Hindus and Muslims.
Rajesh is precisely right. Everybody is not Jesus Christ or his devoted follower. Gandhi, the greatest fraud in Indian political history, used Christian principles of non-violence, to formulate a political agenda for the Quit India Movement. That was using religion for ulterior motives. Christ never asserted that he came to do politics. He came to the world to rid people of ther sins so that they could attain salvation by following him (Christ). "Give Caesar what's unto Caesar, give Lord what's unto Lord".
In 1920's he sided with the Khilafat Movement (in Turkey) which has no connection with the majority sentiments (Hindus) in India. It was a movement by which he thought he could get the Muslim support to join the Quit India Movement.
His policies were based on appeasement and being a nuisance to the British. He was a total nepotist. In 1946-'47, when Muhammad Surahwahrdy had the direct action day, and about 3000 Hindus were butchered in Noakhali (now Bangladesh) and in Kolkata (Beliaghata), Gandhi appealed to his political eunuchs (members of the Congress party) to forgive Muslims. Gandhi refused to seek pardon for Bhagat Singh, who was hanged by the British. In Jalianwala Bagh, General Reginal Dyer shot at unarmed Sikh men, women and children and killed them ruthlessly. Gandhi refused to take action, and called for calm and forgiveness.
It is a shame that Hindus are asked by the leaders in the West to stoop down before others and beg forgiveness for the "Hindu fanaticism". The irony, as Rajesh points out, is that no one recognizes that this so-called Hindu extremism is a response to the Muslim extremism/radical Islam. For this double-standard of the West, the Hindus have rightfully been suspicious of the western motives. In USA, in particular, has some clueless leaders like Jesse Jackson (also Steve Jobs) and others who think Gandhi was great. The fact is that had it is quite easy and OK to formulate nice and pleasant policies that have no bearing on the reality.
MK Gandhi is dead. I wish his idiotic policies of non-violence in politics would die too. The world is not a place where daffodils and skylarks live. It also has tigers, crocs and other fierce animals against whom use of violence for self-defense is a birthright. Gandhi denied this fact.
Gandhi, for all his hypocrisy as a devoted Hindu, could not reconcile that Bhagavad Gita endorses physical violence. He was extremely uncomfortable when asked questions on this issue.
The frauds like Gandhi, need to be exposed and his policicies/strategies routinely debunked. That would bring some sense in this world.
Soja,
You say that the partition was political - that is true. However, when the politics invoke religion then it becomes religious as well. In fact, the sole criterion for Partition was religious. Division on religious lines can be nothing else but religious.
It might have been better if the Partition was allowed to continue to its logical conclusion rather than be stopped in its tracks. In a sense - the partition was half-finished. That is why Pakistan is almost 100% Muslim but India is 20% Muslim. If we wanted to have Partition then India should also be 100% Hindu.
It was Gandhi's folly to stop the Partition - this consigned India to perpetual religious strife between Hindus and Muslims.
You're right that it was a Hindu who assasinated Gandhi but that was because many Hindus felt that Gandhi had given up too much rights to the Muslims. History in fact has proven them right - Gandhi had given too much to the Muslims.
As for the good Muslim rulers - who's to say Hindu rulers would not have done just as good a job? Please don't forget that Islam came to India as a bloodthirsty conqueror - millions of Hindus died so that Islam could plant itself in India. Any Muslim saintly ruler cannot balance out the atrocities done to the Hindus. Islam is alien to India and it's about time people accepted that fact. Whatever cultural achievements Islam has made - and I agree there are many - such as the Taj Mahal, Muslim art and architecture and music - have to be weighed against the atrocious loss of Hindu lives and the enslavement of countless Hindus.
I feel that the rise of Hindu extremism is a very belated response to Islamic aggression (and continued aggression). What do you think Hindus feel when they see the 'special rights' granted to Muslims? Why should 'special rights' be granted to an alien minority whose existence was predicated on Hindu blood?
Pamela - even though commenters here brought evidence from Muslim commentators themselves that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, you have continually said that that is not true and that she was actually in her teens when her marriage was consummated.
However, while reading the website of ali-Sistani, it is clear to me that he considers a girl of 9 years old of marriageable age. I can only think that he is following Muhammed's example. In fact, he talks about a wife who is UNDER 9 years old. Please look at this: http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=
nav&nid=2&bid=59&pid=3093
No, being born over a dozen years later, I wasn’t around during the time India got independence and the partition of the country that accompanied it. I am however aware of the violence that went with it. As I mentioned in my last post to you, I am convinced that the partition and the violence that went with it was politically instigated. After all it is well known how easy it is to manipulate simple people by appealing to their emotions and turn them into mindless killing machines, and that is what happened at the time. It is unfair to Indian Muslims to forget that they worked hand in hand with other Indians to fight for Indian independence and shed their blood, and sacrificed their lives willingly for the cause. I have always admired the fearlessness, and fierce loyalty of Muslims. Remember too that Gandhi was willing to fast himself to death to stop the Hindus and Muslims from killing each other. Lest we forget, it was a Hindu that assassinated Gandhi, not a Muslim.
I do not deny that the spread of Islam in India was also associated with bloodshed in some cases. Again let us not forget that there were good Muslim rulers who contributed much to Indian culture in every way. The Islamic history of India should be interpreted in fairness to Muslims, without forgetting all the wonderful things they did, without of course condoning any wrong doing.
Since I left India nineteen years ago and last visited ten years ago, I am only aware of the Hindu-Muslim communal violence from the media. I find the recent trend disheartening, especially the rise of Hindu fundamentalism and the Muslim blacklash, since it flies in the face of all the wonderful things that Hinduism means to me – a generously tolerant religion with a universal philosophy that can accommodate any religious philosophy in the world. Hindu fundamentalism is a sad contradiction, a slap in the face to all the wonderful Hindus who embodied the greatness of the religion, among others Gandhi, Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharishi, only to name very few of the great ones down the ages. To me India is the holy land which gave birth to several religions precisely because of the universal philosophy of Hinduism and its acceptance of the fact that God manifests Himself in many ways under myriad names. Islam which came to Kerala, supposedly while Prophet Mohammed was still alive and before he left for Medina, has been a peaceful version of the religion all along. Sufism with its long history in India is likewise a peaceful manifestation of Islam. Indian Muslims are first and foremost Indians. Since they are a minority, it is important not to violate their rights to practise their religion peacefully. In India, it is useful to remember that Islam offers a sense of universal brotherhood to all Muslims and liberation from the Hindu caste system with its negative impact for the lower castes. Since India has a secular government and a Hindu majority, I don’t see how Sharia law has any bearing on the non-Muslim population of India, and how any Muslim could impose death penalty or any other kind of punishment on a fellow Muslim or any other Indian in accordance with the Quran, if it violates the rule of Indian law. One should be able to accept the peaceful practice of Islam and have faith in the peace loving Muslims in India and around the world, no matter what may be written in the Quran.
India has many problems to deal with, and the Hindus and Muslims should be working together at solving them, without fighting and killing each other based on the name of the God they worship. I continue to be convinced that apart from a small exception, all Muslims in India live in peace and harmony with their Hindu brethren.
What I was taught in school was that Mother India loves all her children equally, and her children happen to belong to different religions, speak different languages, wear different clothes, follow different customs etc, but they are all her children.
25:72 And [know that true servants of God are only] those who never bear witness to what is false, [54] and [who], whenever they pass by [people engaged in] frivolity, pass on with dignity;
Contradictions
"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).
17:36 And never concern thyself with anything of which thou hast no knowledge: [45] verily, [thy] hearing and sight and heart - all of them - will be called to account for it [on Judgment Day]!
Al-Furqan (The Criterion)
25:72 And [know that true servants of God are only] those who never bear witness to what is false, [54] and [who], whenever they pass by [people engaged in] frivolity, pass on with dignity;
Al-Qasas (The Narration)
28:55 and, whenever they heard frivolous talk, [54] having turned away from it and said: “Unto us shall be accounted Our deeds, and unto you, your deeds. Peace be upon you - [but] we do not seek out such as are ignorant [of the meaning of right and wrong].”
Al-Nour (The Light)
24:12 Why do not the believing men and women, whenever such [a rumour] is heard, [15] think the best of one another and say, “This is an obvious falsehood”?
24:13 why do they not [demand of the accusers that they] [16] their allegation? [17] for, if they do not produce such witnesses, it is those [accusers] who, in the sight of God, are liars indeed!
24:15 when you take it up with your tongues, uttering with your mouths something of which you have no knowledge, and deeming it a light matter whereas in the sight of God it is an awful thing!
24:16 And [once again]: Why do you not say, whenever you hear such [a rumour], “It does not behoove us to speak of this, O Thou who art limitless in Thy glory: this is an awesome calumny”? [19]
Al-Hujurat (The Dwellings)
49:11 O YOU who have attained to faith! No men shall deride [other] men: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than themselves; and no women [shall deride other] women: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than themselves. [12] And neither shall you defame one another, nor insult one another by [opprobrious] epithets: evil is all imputation of iniquity after [one has attained to] faith; [13] and they who [become guilty thereof and] do not repent - it is they, they who are evildoers!
John 16:2-3 "…In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me." (Jesus is speaking)
Jeremiah 8:11-12 "They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; …"
Revelation 17:5-6 "And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON the GREAT, The MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement." (NKJV)
Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Philippians 2:5-12 "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
1 Peter 3:15-16 "…Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." … (18) "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,"
1 John 5:12-13 "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (NKJV, NIV)
1 John 2:22-23 "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (26) "These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you." (NKJV)
John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in our sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV)
Thank you, Muhammed, for providing the specific documentation for what you are saying. I think many educated westerners think that Islam is just another religion on a par with Christianity and Buddhism(I am neither Christian or Buddhist), and Westerners do not take the time to actually look at Islam, and as you say, look at the evidence. And then people like Pamela come along and whitewash the religion, and most Westerners believe her, because she seems so knowledgeable and always has an excuse for why the violent parts of the Koran are either out of context, mistranslations, abrogated by other parts, hadith that are not agreed upon by the authorities etc etc.And when people point out the evidence, Victoria comes along and accuses them of Islamophobia in an attempt to silence people from saying that the emperor has no clothes. Luckily there is still free speech in the US, and people can speak the truth, even about someone who is worshipped by 1.5 billion people.
What would you think of a book that claimed French-Canadians were with Mohammed? It would be pretty strange, since there were no French-Canadians until the 18th century and Mohammed lived in the 7th century. Well, no book has ever said this was so, but the Qur’an contains some equally interesting statements.
Suras 9:68, 21:51-71; 29:16,17; 37:97,98 say Abraham was delivered from Nimrod’s fire. Nimrod lived soon after Noah and long before Abraham. The Fihrist p.27 also acknowledges that Abraham fled from Nimrod. This story seems to be copied from a similar Jewish fable in the Midrash Rabbah.
How could Haman, the Persian minister in Esther’s time (500 B.C.) actually work in Egypt in Moses’ time (1450 B.C.) building the Tower of Babel (before 2500 B.C.) as Suras 27:4-6, 28:38, 29:39, 40:23-24,36-37 indicate? This is another "Mohammed and French-Canadians" problem again.
The same Mary (Mariam in Hebrew and Arabic) was not the mother of Jesus and the sister of Moses (~1450 BC.) as Sura 19:28 says. In the context of the virgin birth of Christ, Sura 19:28 says "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" How could somebody mix these up?
A Muslim commentator remarks that this was because Mary and her cousin Elisabeth came from a priestly family and were thus sisters of their ancestor Aaron. However, Mary came from Judah, not Aaron, and it was Mary that was addressed here. So if the All-Knowing God did not err here, then who did?
Most Muslims believe the Qur’an is an exact copy of a tablet of the Qur’an [in Heaven] in Sura 85:20-22. But consider the following points.
1. It is strange that even in the temporary verses in the Qur’an that Muslims agree Mohammed said were abrogated, are stored for all time in Heaven. They are still in the Qur’an today.
2. Many Muslims are not aware that the Sahih Muslim Hadiths record an extra Sura that is not in the Qur’an today. Muslim apologists claim this too was abrogated, but it is not in today’s Qur’an.
3. ‘Ubai’s early copies of the Qur’an did not contain two Suras that are in the Qur’an today.
4. ‘Abdallah ibn Mas’ud was one of the four people Mohammed said to learn the Qur’an from. Yet Al-Nuri lists verses in Ibn Mas’ud’s version that are not in the Qur’an today.
5. Satan always throws something in with a prophet’s words according to Sura 22:52, but God has to cancel it out. This might be an explanation for why four different Muslim historical sources report that Sura 53:19-20 originally said the intercession (help) of four idol goddesses was to be hoped for.
6. ‘Uthman also made changes to standardize the Qur’an, but that is the topic of the next part.
Your info certainly describes the Islamic world as viewed through the world media much more accurately than the info presented by Pamela and Victoria. I found www.alminbar.com especially informative. Thanks
I am not a Christian, but it should be noted that there is not one single religious text recorded by any early or later Christian which records Jesus’s behaviour as violent in anyway whatsoever. Not one single record in all Christian history. One must conclude, therefore, that Jesus wasn’t a violent man.
When we look at the history of Muhammad, however, there are many thousands (yes thousands) of hadith texts recorded and written down by Muslims (not non-Muslims) which record Muhammad’s behaviour as being violent in the extreme. The examples quoted in this blog represent just the tip of a very large iceberg, as anyone who has studied these historical records will know.
It may be that some of the Muslim hadith text cannot be relied upon, as Victoria and Pamela constantly claim, but the truth is that the Sahih hadith (those considered to be sound and authentic by Sharia law courts, and used in making legal judgements), still contain more than 1,000 hadith which record Muhammad as being one of the most aggressive, intolerant and violent men in history.
Any objective, reasonable historian would conclude, on reading all this material written down by Muslims, that Muhammad was an extremely violent and dangerous man. People who uttered any poetry which Muhammad or his followers considered to be disrespectful of Muhammad were murdered. People who refused to submit to Muhammad (i.e. refused to convert to Islam) were murdered. Men who fought alongside Muhammad were allowed to rape any female captives they got their hands on (including little girls as young as 9). Muhammad actively encouraged them to do this in order to shame the non-believers on behalf of Allah (rape was shameful not just for the women and girls, but also for their communities).
Anyone who doubts that the above is true should be prepared to spend a few weeks of their life reading through the thousands of hadith which record the sunnah of Muhammad, which all Imams and Islamic scholars study.
Instead of denying the above, or listening to what Victoria and Pamela have to say about it, simply go to the following links and start reading the source material for yourself, be prepared to put in the time necessary, then make up your own mind, BASED ON EVIDENCE ALONE. These are the links you need, to begin studying the sahih hadith and the Qur’an for yourself:
This link provides you with three different translations of the Qur’an (translated by Muslims into English), which you can compare side by side: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Also spend some time reading through the sermons of Muslim Imams posted on the internet. When you read these you will see that they always quote the Qur'an and hadith to support their teachings.
The main website for Imams on the internet is www.alminbar.com Check it out and read what Imams are saying today (across the world) about Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. Also look up the references to specific sermons placed earlier in this blog.
Make it a project, then you will KNOW who is speaking the truth.
Muslims Have Said Islam is a Religion of Peace - But Where?
In Nigeria? In 1987 churches were set on fire in Kaduna and Kafanchan and Muslims killed hundreds of Christians.
In Algeria? Algerian Muslim students in the Houston admit that those who convert from Islam are killed in their country.
In the Sudan? Muslim are enslaving and selling women and children of the Dinka tribe according to the London Economist. The May 4, 1992 special ed. of Newsweek on slavery also reported that Muslims are still enslaving blacks as did the Austin American Statesman on 2/2/1996. Reader’s Digest 3/1996 p.77-81 "Slavery’s Shameful Return to Africa" is a heart-wrenching account of oppression today. Also, mosques are being bombed by Muslims of different groups.
In Egypt? A Muslim doctor was stabbed by a Muslim extremist. His crime? - treating a Christian stabbed by a Muslim extremist.
In Iran? On 13/3/1990 Iranian Christian pastor Rev. Hussein Soodmand was taken from his prison cell and executed because 21 years earlier he had converted from Islam to Christianity. Besides Christians, Baha’is, Sufis, and Zoroastrians have also been killed by government authorities.
In Afghanistan, the Sunni Taliban massacred about 3,000 Shi’ite Hazaris. This was probably in revenge for Hazaris massacring about 2,000 Taliban fighters earlier in the war.
In Tajikistan, there has been a brutal civil war that pitted Muslims against Muslims.
In Pakistan, a teenage girl was executed for converting from Islam to Christianity. Small Muslim sects, such as the Ahmaddiya, are by law persecuted by the authorities in Pakistan.
In the Qur’an? "Kill them, and Allah will torment them by your hands. He will humiliate them and give you victory over them…" (Sura 9:14) "Fight those who believe not… even if they be People of the book [Christians and Jews] until they have willingly agreed to pay the Jizya tribute in recognition of their submissive state." (Sura 9:29)
In Iraq, so far I have not heard of any persecution of Christians more than any other groups. Perhaps Iraq today, that pristine paragon of peace, is where Islam is most like a religion of peace.
Conclusion: Islam is the most warlike and violent major world religion today.
barry- there are many many outright lies mixed in with some small truths here-
the body ofo material you see posted here is what is called hadeeth
the sayings of the Prophet(pbuh)
we are commanded to follow sunnah(the actions of the Prophet(pbuh) but first the Qur'an
if any thing contradicts what the Qur'an tell us- we should ignore it.
the Qur'an is our scripture- and most of the accusations you see are very ugly and of a malevolent nature are sayings transmitted by men-
we have to use our common sense too-
there are 1000s of sayings- some strongly transmitted some very questionable
our Prophet(pbuh) was a noble and trustworthy man- when asked who he would be closest to in paradise - he put his first 2 fingers together and said Jesus(ata) and i will be like this.
i made a long response but its beng held by the blog owners- i hope this gets through- its the last sermon of our Prophet(peace and blessing be upon him)
islogo.gif (778 bytes)
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
The Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) Last Sermon
This sermon was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul Hijjah 10 A.H. in the 'Uranah valley of Mount Arafat' (in Mecca).
After praising, and thanking Allah he said:
"O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.
O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon your deeds. ALLAH has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. Allah has Judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn 'Abd'al Muttalib (Prophet's uncle) shall henceforth be waived...
Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.
O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.
O People, listen to me in earnest, worship ALLAH, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to.
All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.
Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.
O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QURAN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray.
All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O ALLAH, that I have conveyed your message to your people".
barry- there are many many outright lies mixed in with some small truths here-
the body ofo material you see posted here is what is called hadeeth
the sayings of the Prophet(pbuh)
we are commanded to follow sunnah(the actions of the Prophet(pbuh) but first the Qur'an
if any thing contradicts what the Qur'an tell us- we should ignore it.
the Qur'an is our scripture- and most of the accusations you see are very ugly and of a malevolent nature are sayings transmitted by men-
we have to use our common sense too-
there are 1000s of sayings- some strongly transmitted some very questionable
our Prophet(pbuh) was a noble and trustwrothy man- when asked who he would be closest to in paradise - he put his first 2 fingers together and said Jesus(ata) and i will be like this.
Dear Victoria,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by people making accusations against your prophet.
When I look at the life of my savior I don't accuse him of anything. I see that he healed the lepers, fed the poor and raised the dead but do not see these acts as accusations because according to scripture he did these things.
In contrast, I read here the shocking (at least to me) revelation that your prophet had either killed people or ordered events that caused people to die. Now, is this an accusation? Or didn't these sorts of incidents really happen - according to your scriptures?
Misleading the general reader by what you think should be Islam, resorting to media's manipulations and the concept of victimhood in Islam shows the fragility of Islamic identity that you (and Victoria) have repeatedly demonstrated at each aned every rebuttal from the knowledgeable bloggers (some of whom were former Muslims such as Muhammad and Omar Qasim).
This situation of self-denial by you, and the more clamorous Victoria, regarding refuting any empirical or anecdotal evidence to the contrary provided by Mo, Qasim, Rajesh and others, doesn't serve any purpose regardless of how good your intentions might be.
The situation is really hilarious because all you have done is to provide your viewpoint and very cleverly avoid direct confrontation with the opinions of other non-Muslims. Your touchy-feely sloppy rebuttals really don't have any essence. For example, you have not answered directly why your benign interpretation of the vicious, racist surahs of the Quran should supercede or have more eminence than the orthodox interpretations of the mullahs in the shanty madrassas in Pakistan.
Because you (and others like you) don't provide any resolving answers, the reader is rather confounded by what is right about Islam. I do view that you may not be responsible for the very violent acts of the "minority" (?) terrorists from the Islamic bloc, but because the Quran, if
read verbatim, does indeed command mindless genocide against non-Muslims it is not at all clear who is right or should be right - you or the mullah orthodoxy.
One thus concludes that Islam, given the violence, chaos, bedlam, mayhem we see committed by these "minority" (?) Muslims, is indeed a very violent religion and such can indeed be verified from the Quranic surahs. The more liberated, educated and emancipated Muslims like you, who are suppossedly in majority, appear to be held hostage by the minority (radicals), and apparently there is no end to this crisis ! Are the non-Muslims to be blamed for this internal crisis within Islam ?
The more defensive you pose, you become less credible and I might conclude that it may not matter to you. All you are doing is to deflect any cogent argument under the guise of pretense of civility/mannerisms. Perhaps such strict penchant for civility and mannerisms, that are tangential to the topic at hand, is supreme than any argument per Islamic perceptions, but that ain't gonna cut it.
You (and Muslims like you) need to do a much better job at convincing others instead of making a case for Islamic victimhood. Till I see that you can do so, I would certainly hold onto my opinion that Islam is a barbaric religion.
no one is trying to convince anyone that islam is a religion of peace.
pamela responds to people who present information, some very wrong-
there isnt the compulsive need to convince others of our rightness or even defend when someone writes something wrong- (such as ansering-islam's amateurish attempt at psychoanalying our Prophet(pbuh).
She is simply a rare commodity on these boards-
a panelist that actually cares about and responds to the people who write on her blog.
For that, you are not correctly identifying the intention or mentality of muslims.
There is no backbiting allowed- it is a detestable thing- it is akin to eating the dead flesh of ones brother- that shows how repulsive it is to us to speak about others- behind their back- or in the case of the Prophet(pbuh) one who is unable to answer the charges.
you are simply misunderstanding if you think anyone here is trying to convince you of anything.
Ms Pamela is just responsible to her posters.
and this is her blog, so she can frame her points of view as she chooses.
Pamela,
You might have convinced yourself, but you have not convinced me that Islam is a religion of peace.
"The reason that Islam suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder is that its founder also suffered from this disorder. I don’t mean this to be taken literally, of course. It is only meant to describe a peculiar phenomenon that went on in Muhammad’s head. When Muhammad first began receiving his "revelations," many of his neighbors in the city of Mecca took it upon themselves to mock and persecute him. Muhammad was a threat both to their immoral lifestyles and to their source of wealth (the pagan idols of the city brought plenty of revenue), and so he had to be stopped, or at least discredited. During this period, Muhammad was humble, devout in many ways, obedient to the message handed down to him, faithful in giving to the poor, and, in general, a fine moral example. In essence, he was like the many fine examples of dedicated Muslims we see in the world today. He preached a religion of peace, and the hadiths we have from this period reflect his peaceful temperament.
Then something happened. Muhammad fled Mecca and moved to Medina, where his political power rapidly increased. Soon he and his followers began raiding caravans to support the fledgling religion,[1] and, while Muhammad’s enemies multiplied, so did his followers. What followed can only be described as a reign of terror for those who refused to submit to Islam. Both men and women were slaughtered for writing satirical poems against Muhammad, and those who left the Islamic faith were exterminated. One woman was murdered in the dark for writing a poem against Muhammad; after she was slain, Muhammad declared that "Two goats won’t butt their heads about her."[2] Hundreds of Jews were beheaded (after surrendering) for standing against Muhammad, and their wives and children were sold into slavery.[3] A blind man who was reportedly more than a hundred years old had his head split open for saying that, if he could only see, he would throw a handful of dust at Muhammad.[4] When a man named Uqba was about to be killed by Muslims and showed concern for his family by asking, "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Muhammad answered by telling the doomed man that Hell would take care of them.[5] (For more on Muhammad’s violent acts, see "Murdered By Muhammad.")
There are, of course, far more examples of violence than the ones listed here, but these should be sufficient to provide a picture of Muhammad’s idea of how Muslims should treat those who refuse to submit to Islam. Was Islam a religion of peace for the 600-900 Jewish men and boys whose heads were piled into trenches after they had surrendered? Was Islam a religion of peace for the woman wh
All Comments (405)
MESSAGE
March 21, 2008 1:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 21, 2008 01:32
MESSAGE
March 21, 2008 1:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 21, 2008 01:32
MESSAGE
March 21, 2008 1:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 21, 2008 01:32
hi! my name is Glock http://buyviagra.bloggcasting.com
October 4, 2007 2:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 4, 2007 02:42
Rajesh
I don't quite understand what giving special rights to Muslims mean and in what way Hindus are being disadvantaged. I agree that no one should be disadvantaged. But since I have no idea what exactly the special rights for Muslims and disadvantages for Hindus entails, I am unable to make any further comments.
I only think in terms of unity and peace. I attended a school for eight years in India that drilled the concept into me - patriotism and love for the diversity of Indian people - even before I met Dom Bede Griffiths who approached the issue from a spiritual perspective.
April 19, 2007 7:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 19, 2007 07:28
India has had 60 years to work out the "Muslim" problem but has failed. All it is doing is to hide it under the carpet by feeding the problem with gifts and sweets.
Remember that it was not the Hindus who wanted Partition but the Muslims themselves. I don't care if any particular Muslim did not want to go to Pakistan - their leaders through the Muslim League and represented by Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted it and fought for it. In the end, they got it. So I'm only asking Muslims to fulfill their side of the bargain and leave India to go live with their Muslim brothers and sisters in Pakistan. That way, problem solved.
Many thousands of Hindus who happened to live in Nothern India before the Partition also didn't want to leave their ancestral homes but were forced to leave by the Muslims. They had to give up everything so why can't the Muslims similarly do the same.
The way Muslims sit down with Hindus to discuss problems is to demand more and more 'special rights'. We Hindus are sick of giving up more and more 'special rights' to Muslims. Everyone should be equal - no special rights for anyone - because your special rights means you have disadvantaged me.
Like I said: the Muslims always take while the Hindus give. How long is this going to go on for? Time for that to stop.
April 17, 2007 8:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 17, 2007 20:49
Rajesh
I do agree that the Hindus are generally a peaceful lot and that is both the secret of the origin and fruit of the rich spiritual tradition India can boast of.
But now we have a serious problem sixty years after independence. Is escalating the hatred and violence between Hindus and Muslims the solution? Gandhi said an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Indians need to work at bringing reconciliation and harmony between Muslims and Hindus. Maybe India needs another Gandhi. India has a Muslim president. That in itself is a sign that all is not as bad as you portray it. Sending 138 million Indian Muslims to Pakistan and Bangladesh is definitely not the solution. Most Muslims who live in India wouldn't want to leave. Most of them didn't want to leave during the partition, but it was forced on them. Muslims in Kerala for instance are first of all Malayalees, very strongly attached to their culture and traditions in Kerala and they have lived in harmony with other religions for centuries. I'm sure Muslims living in other parts of India must feel the same. If any Muslim wanted to leave, who would try to stop them?
I have confidence that the problem can be tackled if Hindus and Muslims who have grievances are willing to sit down and discuss it. The great task is to encourage the Hindus and Muslims to feel the compelling need to live together in harmony for their own welfare and happiness. And I take it for granted that Indian Muslims do not want the whole country to become Muslim for such an expectation would be no more than a wild fantasy.
April 17, 2007 9:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 17, 2007 09:22
Victoria,
Yes I agree. When critics point out that the most authoritative Islamic sources show the behavior and character of your prophet they are aggressively misrepresenting him.
If you don't like to know that your prophet was no better than a deranged self-serving war-lord who raped and plundered all over Arabia then you claim critics are islamophobes. We didn't make up the facts about Muhammad - all these unsavory aspects of Muhammad's life are found in the Islamic records.
I don't see how you can follow such a man and believe he can be a true prophet of a true god. The behavior of Muhammad was no different to that of Hitler. In fact, Hitler was a better man because he didn't take sex slaves. Eva Braun was a willing participant in their relationship, not someone he captured and forced into a sexual relationship.
April 16, 2007 9:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 16, 2007 21:26
as i wrote- my point was not to argue or be questioned.
the question was answered in a previous post, take it or leave it.
i was addressing the surprisingly negative perception that soja incorrectly holds about islam.
i am willing to assume that it was not meant to be so insulting, but is purely that shes been told these falsehoods by islamophobes.
this is why we must always let the adherents speak for themselves about their own faiths.
i have strong opinions about gandhi, and hinduism- some positive and some negative observations about the actual practices of hindusim and how it manifests itself into society.
but it is not my place to criticize others- or denigrate their beliefs.
such behavior is not gracious and just bad mannered and small hearted.
i also feel compelled to address the aggressive misrepresentation of our Prophet(pbuh)
because there are others outr there who may actually believe these ugly ideas,
obviously you have a well formed hatred of islam, so i will not waste energy trying to turn your hate into reason.
if you care to be reasonable- and are truly looking for knowledge, read this link-
or not as you like.
http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375.
April 16, 2007 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 16, 2007 14:23
Victoria wrote;
"and that Prophet Mohammad's marriages to several women including a child"
this is not true. period.and is a very insulting thing to say.
~~~~
Which part is untrue, Victoria? The part about Muhammad's marriage to several women.
Or the part about the child? You don't think Ayesha was a child even though the sahih hadiths are in total agreement that she was nine years old? Don't tell me you believe she was a teenager or older even though that sort of apologetics have been repeatedly shown to be lies?
April 16, 2007 10:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 16, 2007 10:17
soja- as you explained- it is for muslims to explain.
i will start by explaining that, just as i respect when other people present their religions as they know them, and dont question every single thing they say as if they are lying- i expect the same- but never recieve this reciprocal treatment-
so im not going to post a bunch of proofs but just speak as a normal person would.
"I do not deny too that there is much violence mentioned in the Quran"
there are exponentially more calls to peace in the qur'an than violence.
when reading the qur'an, personally- i dont encounter violence very often at all- sometimes there are descriptions of events in the past.
"and that Prophet Mohammad's marriages to several women including a child"
this is not true. period.and is a very insulting thing to say.
"his method of acquiring those wives, after the death of his first wife, from the age of fifty to his death twelve years later, are not very encouraging or exemplary."
this is not true. his "acquisition" of wives were specifically exemplary examples.
"But from what I understand his followers were instructed not to do as he did with regard to polygamy. but to do as he said"
you understand incorrectly.
this is a most base and hypocritical behavior for anyone to indulge in, let alone a prophet of god.
the only difference is the number.
he was happily married and monogamous for 25 years.
"and Muslims consider whatever he did as special privileges granted to a prophet but his behaviour was not to be imitated by the ordinary human being."
his behavior is TO BE COPIED AND SEEN AS AN EXAMPLE. that is what sunnah is- the actions of Muhammad(pbuh), and we are specifically instructed to follow the qur'an AND the sunnah by the Prophet(pbuh).
this false statement would be equivalent to me saying that the actions of Jesus(ata) are not to be imitated by christians.
do you see how deeply insulted you would be by such a statement?
it is the exact opposite.
im tryng to have suspicion for the best intentions from all that i encounter here until proven wrong, so ill just assume that your perceptions of muslims is from people around you who have told you these things-
i am truly hoping it wasnt a nod and a wink to your fellow desis.
even considering that such things come even close to true, implies that islam is something it is not.
stereotypes- as im sure you well know- are rampant currently about muslims- and these are some examples of the worst stereotypes that exist, and maybe even in your case innocently propogated.
to recap- the Prophet(pbuh) was the most trustworthy and honorable of men, and the ideas put forth here greatly dishonor him.
so at the minimum i ask that the same respect given to others, also be extended to muslims.
April 16, 2007 3:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 16, 2007 03:31
Who is talking about punishing Muslims? I'm only asking that they respect their wish to form Pakistan for Muslims only and leave India for Pakistan.
It was their wish - their plan. They refused to allow Indian independence without having a homeland of their own. The Hindus did not want to break up India but the Muslims did. The Muslims demanded Partition. They campaigned for it. They fought for it. So what's the problem?
Please read up on what the Muslim League and the Partition.
You're basically saying that the Muslims get Pakistan (and Bangladesh) for the Muslims only but still have the right to live in India.
April 15, 2007 9:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 15, 2007 21:41
It is not I who assert India is only for Hindus it is the Muslims themselves under Mohammad Ali Jinnah who stated this when they pressed for Partition against Hindu wishes.
I'm only saying that if that was the plan then it should have been concluded. You can't have a plan where the Muslims get satisfaction (i.e. Pakistan is 100% Muslim) while the Hindus do not.
Either you have Partition or you don't.
I actually think highly of Gandhi but believe he was wrong on this issue. He should have stood up against the Muslims on this. Having agreed to the Partition he then campaigned to stop it because of people were killed on both sides in the inter-religious violence. So in the end, he screwed India. Note how Pakistan merrily went on expelling the Hindus regardless.
I also don't believe that there is little inter-religious strife in India. It is an everyday occurrence. The only reason that it doesn't blow up more often is because the Hindus have agreed to 'turn the other cheek' and 'accomodate' the Muslims by caving in to their sectarian demands. Muslims are a state within a state - enjoying special rights and privileges. That is not sustainable in the long-run. Hindu extremism is merely a belated reaction against Muslim aggression. If you live among Muslims you will know that they are always aggressive and aggrieved because they believe as Muslims the world belongs to them via Allah.
In short - religious harmony in India is only because the Muslims take and the Hindus give. And Muslims always take.
April 15, 2007 9:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 15, 2007 21:36
Deb
I noticed that I forgot one important point in my response to your post. I do agree with you that violence must be resorted to in self defence if nothing else will work. Protection of national boundaries is one example. But pre-emptive invasion of another country on the grounds that it MAY attack and call it self-defence, is absolute rubbish, for such a excuse can be used to invade any country in the world because any country may theoritically attack.
I do not deny too that there is much violence mentioned in the Quran, and that Prophet Mohammad's marriages to several women including a child, his method of acquiring those wives, after the death of his first wife, from the age of fifty to his death twelve years later, are not very encouraging or exemplary. But from what I understand his followers were instructed not to do as he did with regard to polygamy, but to do as he said and Muslims consider whatever he did as special privileges granted to a prophet but his behaviour was not to be imitated by the ordinary human being. It is for Muslims to explain the context and spiritual implication and social application of everythign in this day and age.
In regard to practice of Islam in India, how many Indians do you think have actually read the Quran and know what is written in it? Even in the Catholic Church one didn't read the Bibles as part of our normal religious life until recently. Even then, not all Catholics read the Bible as a rule. They just follow the rituals and listen to what the priest has to say, the understanding being that the average person may not fully understand what is written, or may misinterpret the context or message etc. Or whatever. When one notices how many people fail to understand the cultural life of Jews and other Christians in the first century, and are unable to understand some of the social practices mentioned in that context, and mistake social customs of the day and culture for eternal truth, one can understand why Bible reading must have been restricted to the clergy (I don't agree with the practice of course), just as the average man does not read any Hindu Scripture. So by the same token the average Indian has NOT read the Quran and has lived by the social customs of the Hindu society in India. Rulers, no matter what religion they practice, use violence in many instances to gain and maintain power. Islam as political religion is something I know nothing about. To me religion is about understanding the rules of God, the God who loves all His creation equally; religion is about the life of the spirit, and applying spiritual laws that come from God appropriately in our daily lives.
April 15, 2007 8:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 15, 2007 20:37
Deb and Rajesh,
Since both of your addressed the same topic I will respond in one post.
I’m deeply disappointed that both of you seem to hold Mahatma Gandhi in such low esteem despite the fact that he united all Indians for a common purpose and was pivotal to achieving Indian independence by non-violent means, a method anyone familiar with the violence of political power tactics would have considered completely inappropriate to achieve such an ambitious political goal. His spiritually based political strategy has inspired political giants like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King and he has been an inspiration to millions around the world. Einstein said of him that in years to come it would be hard to believe that such a man as Gandhi ever walked the face of this earth. Let it be known that he was chosen as the greatest man of the past thousand years in a BBC poll in 2000, and came ahead of Jesus Christ!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/583427.stm
I’m quite aware of the trend that many elite Indians tend to consider it their intellectual duty to have a “problem” with Gandhi as proof of their critical thinking.
Deb, the Bhagavad Gita is a spiritual guide for the Hindu householder to attain liberation/God realisation, and is NOT a “The Art of War” manual for a ruler. So Gandhi did nothing wrong in applying the Gita as he did. Although he said that his politics was the fruit of his religion, he never called himself a spiritual leader or guru. One must consider him a pious politician and not a religious leader who clamoured for political power. He proved how one could be a householder living in the world and fight for justice by peaceful means as part of one’s spiritual goal to realise God. That is after all part of Karma Yoga in the Gita. A battle that is just as effective as bombs without causing the death and destruction that bombs do, is still a battle. The fact that one wages the battle using wisdom that stems from the spiritual world doesn’t make it less of a battle. The most important fact is the success of Gandhi’s mission and the fact that it continues to inspire many people today. One can admire him for his achievements even if one doesn't agree with everything he did, nor find some of his thoughts applicable today.
I do agree however Deb, that non-violence may not work in every case. There is a time and place for weapons. The Catholic concept of "just war" answers that need for weapons in certain circumstances, and I endorse that view. For instance Hitler could not have been stopped by Gandhian methods after the outbreak of WW II. But in this age of nuclear weapons and the nature of the war technology, any war is bound to be unjust, no matter what criterion one may use.
I will continue to assert that the partition of India was politically rather than religiously motivated. Religion was merely used as a tool and ordinary people were instigated to turn into killing machines to achieve political goals. If religion had been the basis for the partition, the desire would have been expressed by the people (and why would anyone have needed a separate country based on their religion since at no time had any Muslim been prevented from practising their faith and India had been under two hundred years of colonial rule prior to Independence and not Muslim rule), and not by a political leader who stood to gain by having a separate country which he could rule, considering his chances were smaller in a Hindu majority unified India. It is important to remember that not all Muslim politicians wanted the partition either and we have had Indian Presidents and politicians since Independence, despite Muslims being a minority group in India.
It is extremely distorted overgeneralisation to claim that perpetual Hindu-Muslim strife exists all over India. Apart from the perpetual Kashmir conflict, the Hindu-Muslim conflict is restricted to certain areas and there is a parallel fundamentalist Hindu faction that is involved in the strife as well. So we find that ordinary Hindus and ordinary Muslims are not part of the strife at all. It is horrendous if the conflict is allowed to spread, rather than attempts being made to stop it, and work towards reconciliation and harmony. The best way to make any country vulnerable to forces from without, is to have internal fights. So it is in the best interests of Indian integrity as a nation to work towards Hindu-Muslim peace rather than strive for the meaningless goal of "India only for Hindus." How would any Hindu living outside India feel if every non-Hindu nation declared that they had no right to be there, because their religion was alien to the culture, Western culture for instance?
India can never be 100% Hindu, first of all because Hinduism itself is a con-federation of religions (and in the long ago past Hinduism merely meant the culture and religions of people living in the geographical location that is India once called Hindustan), rather than a single religion and India has had traditions of other religions springing from its soil from the earliest times – Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, among others. Parsis are foreign to Indian soil too, and what about Christians of 100% Indian origin, such as I am?
To me a real Hindu is a generous soul with a universal acceptance of all religious philosophies. Many great Hindu saints and religious reformers have worked very hard to contribute to such a Hindu attitude, and the rise of Hindu fundamentalism is an insult to all of them. As far as practice of Hinduism itself goes, each Hindu family seems to worship a different God and every person in the family may have their own favourite deity. Hindu fundamentalism is to me therefore NOT real Hinduism, for Hinduism has no history of waging religious wars on anyone in its entire history spanning thousands of years.
About Muslim rule, which involved great Muslim rulers and great contribution to Indian culture, not just violent ones, where do we draw the line in passing a judgement on them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
Do we punish innocent Muslims now based on what some Muslim rulers have done in the long ago past? Considering the Moghul Empire came to an end in 1707, and India was under colonial rule for nearly two hundred years before achieving Independence sixty years ago, do we punish innocent Muslims now for what Muslim rulers may have done over three hundred years ago, while of course ignoring all the great contribution to Indian culture? For example would it be fair to punish ordinary Germans three hundred years from now for what Hitler and his regime did to the Jews during WW II, to punish completely innocent people centuries later for crimes committed by their rulers?
So what exactly is the belated Hindu extremism trying to achieve? What good is going to come out of punishing innocent people for crimes committed by rulers in the long ago past, and whipping up hatred and sifting division? Haven’t the Muslims proved to be sons of the Indian soil, just like any Hindu, by fighting for Indian Independence? Haven’t they been part of India just like everyone else since Independence, and for centuries before that?
If achieving some kind of belated justice for what Muslim rulers did to Hindus in the long ago post, is what Hindu extremism is all about, what about the members of the Hindu lower castes who have suffered oppression for millennia? Who will avenge their cause and what can be done to make it up to them?
I do wish that both of you, Deb and Rajesh, would develop the generosity of spirit towards Muslims, the universal attitude that is the hallmark of Hinduism. And I am sure it can be done without condoning any wrong doing on anyone's part, both Hindus and Muslims.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
April 14, 2007 5:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 14, 2007 05:47
Soja:
Rajesh is precisely right. Everybody is not Jesus Christ or his devoted follower. Gandhi, the greatest fraud in Indian political history, used Christian principles of non-violence, to formulate a political agenda for the Quit India Movement. That was using religion for ulterior motives. Christ never asserted that he came to do politics. He came to the world to rid people of ther sins so that they could attain salvation by following him (Christ). "Give Caesar what's unto Caesar, give Lord what's unto Lord".
In 1920's he sided with the Khilafat Movement (in Turkey) which has no connection with the majority sentiments (Hindus) in India. It was a movement by which he thought he could get the Muslim support to join the Quit India Movement.
His policies were based on appeasement and being a nuisance to the British. He was a total nepotist. In 1946-'47, when Muhammad Surahwahrdy had the direct action day, and about 3000 Hindus were butchered in Noakhali (now Bangladesh) and in Kolkata (Beliaghata), Gandhi appealed to his political eunuchs (members of the Congress party) to forgive Muslims. Gandhi refused to seek pardon for Bhagat Singh, who was hanged by the British. In Jalianwala Bagh, General Reginal Dyer shot at unarmed Sikh men, women and children and killed them ruthlessly. Gandhi refused to take action, and called for calm and forgiveness.
It is a shame that Hindus are asked by the leaders in the West to stoop down before others and beg forgiveness for the "Hindu fanaticism". The irony, as Rajesh points out, is that no one recognizes that this so-called Hindu extremism is a response to the Muslim extremism/radical Islam. For this double-standard of the West, the Hindus have rightfully been suspicious of the western motives. In USA, in particular, has some clueless leaders like Jesse Jackson (also Steve Jobs) and others who think Gandhi was great. The fact is that had it is quite easy and OK to formulate nice and pleasant policies that have no bearing on the reality.
MK Gandhi is dead. I wish his idiotic policies of non-violence in politics would die too. The world is not a place where daffodils and skylarks live. It also has tigers, crocs and other fierce animals against whom use of violence for self-defense is a birthright. Gandhi denied this fact.
Gandhi, for all his hypocrisy as a devoted Hindu, could not reconcile that Bhagavad Gita endorses physical violence. He was extremely uncomfortable when asked questions on this issue.
The frauds like Gandhi, need to be exposed and his policicies/strategies routinely debunked. That would bring some sense in this world.
April 11, 2007 11:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 11:45
Soja,
You say that the partition was political - that is true. However, when the politics invoke religion then it becomes religious as well. In fact, the sole criterion for Partition was religious. Division on religious lines can be nothing else but religious.
It might have been better if the Partition was allowed to continue to its logical conclusion rather than be stopped in its tracks. In a sense - the partition was half-finished. That is why Pakistan is almost 100% Muslim but India is 20% Muslim. If we wanted to have Partition then India should also be 100% Hindu.
It was Gandhi's folly to stop the Partition - this consigned India to perpetual religious strife between Hindus and Muslims.
You're right that it was a Hindu who assasinated Gandhi but that was because many Hindus felt that Gandhi had given up too much rights to the Muslims. History in fact has proven them right - Gandhi had given too much to the Muslims.
As for the good Muslim rulers - who's to say Hindu rulers would not have done just as good a job? Please don't forget that Islam came to India as a bloodthirsty conqueror - millions of Hindus died so that Islam could plant itself in India. Any Muslim saintly ruler cannot balance out the atrocities done to the Hindus. Islam is alien to India and it's about time people accepted that fact. Whatever cultural achievements Islam has made - and I agree there are many - such as the Taj Mahal, Muslim art and architecture and music - have to be weighed against the atrocious loss of Hindu lives and the enslavement of countless Hindus.
I feel that the rise of Hindu extremism is a very belated response to Islamic aggression (and continued aggression). What do you think Hindus feel when they see the 'special rights' granted to Muslims? Why should 'special rights' be granted to an alien minority whose existence was predicated on Hindu blood?
April 10, 2007 8:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 20:30
Pamela - even though commenters here brought evidence from Muslim commentators themselves that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, you have continually said that that is not true and that she was actually in her teens when her marriage was consummated.
However, while reading the website of ali-Sistani, it is clear to me that he considers a girl of 9 years old of marriageable age. I can only think that he is following Muhammed's example. In fact, he talks about a wife who is UNDER 9 years old. Please look at this:
http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=
nav&nid=2&bid=59&pid=3093
April 10, 2007 5:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 17:33
Rajesh (Ref post 5 April 2007 3:57 AM):
No, being born over a dozen years later, I wasn’t around during the time India got independence and the partition of the country that accompanied it. I am however aware of the violence that went with it. As I mentioned in my last post to you, I am convinced that the partition and the violence that went with it was politically instigated. After all it is well known how easy it is to manipulate simple people by appealing to their emotions and turn them into mindless killing machines, and that is what happened at the time. It is unfair to Indian Muslims to forget that they worked hand in hand with other Indians to fight for Indian independence and shed their blood, and sacrificed their lives willingly for the cause. I have always admired the fearlessness, and fierce loyalty of Muslims. Remember too that Gandhi was willing to fast himself to death to stop the Hindus and Muslims from killing each other. Lest we forget, it was a Hindu that assassinated Gandhi, not a Muslim.
I do not deny that the spread of Islam in India was also associated with bloodshed in some cases. Again let us not forget that there were good Muslim rulers who contributed much to Indian culture in every way. The Islamic history of India should be interpreted in fairness to Muslims, without forgetting all the wonderful things they did, without of course condoning any wrong doing.
Since I left India nineteen years ago and last visited ten years ago, I am only aware of the Hindu-Muslim communal violence from the media. I find the recent trend disheartening, especially the rise of Hindu fundamentalism and the Muslim blacklash, since it flies in the face of all the wonderful things that Hinduism means to me – a generously tolerant religion with a universal philosophy that can accommodate any religious philosophy in the world. Hindu fundamentalism is a sad contradiction, a slap in the face to all the wonderful Hindus who embodied the greatness of the religion, among others Gandhi, Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharishi, only to name very few of the great ones down the ages. To me India is the holy land which gave birth to several religions precisely because of the universal philosophy of Hinduism and its acceptance of the fact that God manifests Himself in many ways under myriad names. Islam which came to Kerala, supposedly while Prophet Mohammed was still alive and before he left for Medina, has been a peaceful version of the religion all along. Sufism with its long history in India is likewise a peaceful manifestation of Islam. Indian Muslims are first and foremost Indians. Since they are a minority, it is important not to violate their rights to practise their religion peacefully. In India, it is useful to remember that Islam offers a sense of universal brotherhood to all Muslims and liberation from the Hindu caste system with its negative impact for the lower castes. Since India has a secular government and a Hindu majority, I don’t see how Sharia law has any bearing on the non-Muslim population of India, and how any Muslim could impose death penalty or any other kind of punishment on a fellow Muslim or any other Indian in accordance with the Quran, if it violates the rule of Indian law. One should be able to accept the peaceful practice of Islam and have faith in the peace loving Muslims in India and around the world, no matter what may be written in the Quran.
India has many problems to deal with, and the Hindus and Muslims should be working together at solving them, without fighting and killing each other based on the name of the God they worship. I continue to be convinced that apart from a small exception, all Muslims in India live in peace and harmony with their Hindu brethren.
What I was taught in school was that Mother India loves all her children equally, and her children happen to belong to different religions, speak different languages, wear different clothes, follow different customs etc, but they are all her children.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
April 10, 2007 10:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 10:46
im not seeing a contradiction-
thank you for the ayats
they are lovely and true
as you posted, ALLAH truly knows best
April 10, 2007 3:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 03:21
25:72 And [know that true servants of God are only] those who never bear witness to what is false, [54] and [who], whenever they pass by [people engaged in] frivolity, pass on with dignity;
Contradictions
"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).
April 9, 2007 9:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 21:42
there are no contradictions here-
they all express similar ideas-
if you think there is a contradiction you would have presented it
April 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 12:46
So you have proved that the koran is full of contradictions. Good job Victoria!
April 8, 2007 6:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 8, 2007 18:27
Al-Isra (The Journey by Night)
17:36 And never concern thyself with anything of which thou hast no knowledge: [45] verily, [thy] hearing and sight and heart - all of them - will be called to account for it [on Judgment Day]!
Al-Furqan (The Criterion)
25:72 And [know that true servants of God are only] those who never bear witness to what is false, [54] and [who], whenever they pass by [people engaged in] frivolity, pass on with dignity;
Al-Qasas (The Narration)
28:55 and, whenever they heard frivolous talk, [54] having turned away from it and said: “Unto us shall be accounted Our deeds, and unto you, your deeds. Peace be upon you - [but] we do not seek out such as are ignorant [of the meaning of right and wrong].”
Al-Nour (The Light)
24:12 Why do not the believing men and women, whenever such [a rumour] is heard, [15] think the best of one another and say, “This is an obvious falsehood”?
24:13 why do they not [demand of the accusers that they] [16] their allegation? [17] for, if they do not produce such witnesses, it is those [accusers] who, in the sight of God, are liars indeed!
24:15 when you take it up with your tongues, uttering with your mouths something of which you have no knowledge, and deeming it a light matter whereas in the sight of God it is an awful thing!
24:16 And [once again]: Why do you not say, whenever you hear such [a rumour], “It does not behoove us to speak of this, O Thou who art limitless in Thy glory: this is an awesome calumny”? [19]
Al-Hujurat (The Dwellings)
49:11 O YOU who have attained to faith! No men shall deride [other] men: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than themselves; and no women [shall deride other] women: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than themselves. [12] And neither shall you defame one another, nor insult one another by [opprobrious] epithets: evil is all imputation of iniquity after [one has attained to] faith; [13] and they who [become guilty thereof and] do not repent - it is they, they who are evildoers!
April 8, 2007 2:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 8, 2007 02:31
Arguing about which religion is best is like running in the Special Olympics. even if you win you're still retarded.
April 7, 2007 7:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 19:10
John 16:2-3 "…In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me." (Jesus is speaking)
Jeremiah 8:11-12 "They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; …"
Revelation 17:5-6 "And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON the GREAT, The MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement." (NKJV)
April 7, 2007 6:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 18:45
The Pre-Eminence of Jesus
Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Philippians 2:5-12 "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
1 Peter 3:15-16 "…Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." … (18) "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,"
1 John 5:12-13 "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (NKJV, NIV)
1 John 2:22-23 "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (26) "These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you." (NKJV)
John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in our sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV)
April 7, 2007 6:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 18:33
Thank you, Muhammed, for providing the specific documentation for what you are saying. I think many educated westerners think that Islam is just another religion on a par with Christianity and Buddhism(I am neither Christian or Buddhist), and Westerners do not take the time to actually look at Islam, and as you say, look at the evidence. And then people like Pamela come along and whitewash the religion, and most Westerners believe her, because she seems so knowledgeable and always has an excuse for why the violent parts of the Koran are either out of context, mistranslations, abrogated by other parts, hadith that are not agreed upon by the authorities etc etc.And when people point out the evidence, Victoria comes along and accuses them of Islamophobia in an attempt to silence people from saying that the emperor has no clothes. Luckily there is still free speech in the US, and people can speak the truth, even about someone who is worshipped by 1.5 billion people.
April 7, 2007 5:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 17:36
What would you think of a book that claimed French-Canadians were with Mohammed? It would be pretty strange, since there were no French-Canadians until the 18th century and Mohammed lived in the 7th century. Well, no book has ever said this was so, but the Qur’an contains some equally interesting statements.
Suras 9:68, 21:51-71; 29:16,17; 37:97,98 say Abraham was delivered from Nimrod’s fire. Nimrod lived soon after Noah and long before Abraham. The Fihrist p.27 also acknowledges that Abraham fled from Nimrod. This story seems to be copied from a similar Jewish fable in the Midrash Rabbah.
How could Haman, the Persian minister in Esther’s time (500 B.C.) actually work in Egypt in Moses’ time (1450 B.C.) building the Tower of Babel (before 2500 B.C.) as Suras 27:4-6, 28:38, 29:39, 40:23-24,36-37 indicate? This is another "Mohammed and French-Canadians" problem again.
The same Mary (Mariam in Hebrew and Arabic) was not the mother of Jesus and the sister of Moses (~1450 BC.) as Sura 19:28 says. In the context of the virgin birth of Christ, Sura 19:28 says "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" How could somebody mix these up?
A Muslim commentator remarks that this was because Mary and her cousin Elisabeth came from a priestly family and were thus sisters of their ancestor Aaron. However, Mary came from Judah, not Aaron, and it was Mary that was addressed here. So if the All-Knowing God did not err here, then who did?
April 7, 2007 4:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 16:03
Qur’an’s Transmitted Reliability
Most Muslims believe the Qur’an is an exact copy of a tablet of the Qur’an [in Heaven] in Sura 85:20-22. But consider the following points.
1. It is strange that even in the temporary verses in the Qur’an that Muslims agree Mohammed said were abrogated, are stored for all time in Heaven. They are still in the Qur’an today.
2. Many Muslims are not aware that the Sahih Muslim Hadiths record an extra Sura that is not in the Qur’an today. Muslim apologists claim this too was abrogated, but it is not in today’s Qur’an.
3. ‘Ubai’s early copies of the Qur’an did not contain two Suras that are in the Qur’an today.
4. ‘Abdallah ibn Mas’ud was one of the four people Mohammed said to learn the Qur’an from. Yet Al-Nuri lists verses in Ibn Mas’ud’s version that are not in the Qur’an today.
5. Satan always throws something in with a prophet’s words according to Sura 22:52, but God has to cancel it out. This might be an explanation for why four different Muslim historical sources report that Sura 53:19-20 originally said the intercession (help) of four idol goddesses was to be hoped for.
6. ‘Uthman also made changes to standardize the Qur’an, but that is the topic of the next part.
April 7, 2007 3:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 15:49
Muhammad, Rajesh, Deb Chatterjee, Qasim Omar:
Your info certainly describes the Islamic world as viewed through the world media much more accurately than the info presented by Pamela and Victoria. I found www.alminbar.com especially informative. Thanks
April 7, 2007 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 15:00
I am not a Christian, but it should be noted that there is not one single religious text recorded by any early or later Christian which records Jesus’s behaviour as violent in anyway whatsoever. Not one single record in all Christian history. One must conclude, therefore, that Jesus wasn’t a violent man.
When we look at the history of Muhammad, however, there are many thousands (yes thousands) of hadith texts recorded and written down by Muslims (not non-Muslims) which record Muhammad’s behaviour as being violent in the extreme. The examples quoted in this blog represent just the tip of a very large iceberg, as anyone who has studied these historical records will know.
It may be that some of the Muslim hadith text cannot be relied upon, as Victoria and Pamela constantly claim, but the truth is that the Sahih hadith (those considered to be sound and authentic by Sharia law courts, and used in making legal judgements), still contain more than 1,000 hadith which record Muhammad as being one of the most aggressive, intolerant and violent men in history.
Any objective, reasonable historian would conclude, on reading all this material written down by Muslims, that Muhammad was an extremely violent and dangerous man. People who uttered any poetry which Muhammad or his followers considered to be disrespectful of Muhammad were murdered. People who refused to submit to Muhammad (i.e. refused to convert to Islam) were murdered. Men who fought alongside Muhammad were allowed to rape any female captives they got their hands on (including little girls as young as 9). Muhammad actively encouraged them to do this in order to shame the non-believers on behalf of Allah (rape was shameful not just for the women and girls, but also for their communities).
Anyone who doubts that the above is true should be prepared to spend a few weeks of their life reading through the thousands of hadith which record the sunnah of Muhammad, which all Imams and Islamic scholars study.
Instead of denying the above, or listening to what Victoria and Pamela have to say about it, simply go to the following links and start reading the source material for yourself, be prepared to put in the time necessary, then make up your own mind, BASED ON EVIDENCE ALONE. These are the links you need, to begin studying the sahih hadith and the Qur’an for yourself:
This link provides you with a database of Sahih hadith, translated into English by Muslims:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
This link provides you with three different translations of the Qur’an (translated by Muslims into English), which you can compare side by side:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Also spend some time reading through the sermons of Muslim Imams posted on the internet. When you read these you will see that they always quote the Qur'an and hadith to support their teachings.
The main website for Imams on the internet is www.alminbar.com Check it out and read what Imams are saying today (across the world) about Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. Also look up the references to specific sermons placed earlier in this blog.
Make it a project, then you will KNOW who is speaking the truth.
April 7, 2007 2:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 14:10
Muslims Have Said Islam is a Religion of Peace - But Where?
In Nigeria? In 1987 churches were set on fire in Kaduna and Kafanchan and Muslims killed hundreds of Christians.
In Algeria? Algerian Muslim students in the Houston admit that those who convert from Islam are killed in their country.
In the Sudan? Muslim are enslaving and selling women and children of the Dinka tribe according to the London Economist. The May 4, 1992 special ed. of Newsweek on slavery also reported that Muslims are still enslaving blacks as did the Austin American Statesman on 2/2/1996. Reader’s Digest 3/1996 p.77-81 "Slavery’s Shameful Return to Africa" is a heart-wrenching account of oppression today. Also, mosques are being bombed by Muslims of different groups.
In Egypt? A Muslim doctor was stabbed by a Muslim extremist. His crime? - treating a Christian stabbed by a Muslim extremist.
In Iran? On 13/3/1990 Iranian Christian pastor Rev. Hussein Soodmand was taken from his prison cell and executed because 21 years earlier he had converted from Islam to Christianity. Besides Christians, Baha’is, Sufis, and Zoroastrians have also been killed by government authorities.
In Afghanistan, the Sunni Taliban massacred about 3,000 Shi’ite Hazaris. This was probably in revenge for Hazaris massacring about 2,000 Taliban fighters earlier in the war.
In Tajikistan, there has been a brutal civil war that pitted Muslims against Muslims.
In Pakistan, a teenage girl was executed for converting from Islam to Christianity. Small Muslim sects, such as the Ahmaddiya, are by law persecuted by the authorities in Pakistan.
In the Qur’an? "Kill them, and Allah will torment them by your hands. He will humiliate them and give you victory over them…" (Sura 9:14) "Fight those who believe not… even if they be People of the book [Christians and Jews] until they have willingly agreed to pay the Jizya tribute in recognition of their submissive state." (Sura 9:29)
In Iraq, so far I have not heard of any persecution of Christians more than any other groups. Perhaps Iraq today, that pristine paragon of peace, is where Islam is most like a religion of peace.
Conclusion: Islam is the most warlike and violent major world religion today.
April 7, 2007 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 12:48
Thank you Victoria for your reply. However, I'm still none the wiser as to whether your prophet killed anyone or caused anyone to be killed.
Barry
April 7, 2007 8:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 08:42
barry- there are many many outright lies mixed in with some small truths here-
the body ofo material you see posted here is what is called hadeeth
the sayings of the Prophet(pbuh)
we are commanded to follow sunnah(the actions of the Prophet(pbuh) but first the Qur'an
if any thing contradicts what the Qur'an tell us- we should ignore it.
the Qur'an is our scripture- and most of the accusations you see are very ugly and of a malevolent nature are sayings transmitted by men-
we have to use our common sense too-
there are 1000s of sayings- some strongly transmitted some very questionable
our Prophet(pbuh) was a noble and trustworthy man- when asked who he would be closest to in paradise - he put his first 2 fingers together and said Jesus(ata) and i will be like this.
have a blessed holiday barry
April 7, 2007 2:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 02:03
i made a long response but its beng held by the blog owners- i hope this gets through- its the last sermon of our Prophet(peace and blessing be upon him)
islogo.gif (778 bytes)
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
The Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) Last Sermon
This sermon was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul Hijjah 10 A.H. in the 'Uranah valley of Mount Arafat' (in Mecca).
After praising, and thanking Allah he said:
"O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.
O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon your deeds. ALLAH has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. Allah has Judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn 'Abd'al Muttalib (Prophet's uncle) shall henceforth be waived...
Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.
O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.
O People, listen to me in earnest, worship ALLAH, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to.
All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.
Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.
O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QURAN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray.
All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O ALLAH, that I have conveyed your message to your people".
April 7, 2007 2:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 02:02
barry- there are many many outright lies mixed in with some small truths here-
the body ofo material you see posted here is what is called hadeeth
the sayings of the Prophet(pbuh)
we are commanded to follow sunnah(the actions of the Prophet(pbuh) but first the Qur'an
if any thing contradicts what the Qur'an tell us- we should ignore it.
the Qur'an is our scripture- and most of the accusations you see are very ugly and of a malevolent nature are sayings transmitted by men-
we have to use our common sense too-
there are 1000s of sayings- some strongly transmitted some very questionable
our Prophet(pbuh) was a noble and trustwrothy man- when asked who he would be closest to in paradise - he put his first 2 fingers together and said Jesus(ata) and i will be like this.
have a blessed holiday barry
April 7, 2007 1:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 01:59
Dear Victoria,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by people making accusations against your prophet.
When I look at the life of my savior I don't accuse him of anything. I see that he healed the lepers, fed the poor and raised the dead but do not see these acts as accusations because according to scripture he did these things.
In contrast, I read here the shocking (at least to me) revelation that your prophet had either killed people or ordered events that caused people to die. Now, is this an accusation? Or didn't these sorts of incidents really happen - according to your scriptures?
Happy Easter
Barry
April 6, 2007 10:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 22:51
Victoria
==> it is simply not true as you assert that tere are "many" hadeeths that present the Prophet(pbuh) in an unfavorable light- but a scant few-
*
Last time I counted there were hundreds in Sahih Bukhari alone.
You want to look for the genocide of the Jews? Yup it's in Sahih bukhari.
You want to look for the rape of Safiya after Mo beheaded her husband? Yup - it's in Sahih Bukhari too.
You want to look for Mo having sex with a nine year old girl? Hey what a surprise - it's in Sahih Bukhari too.
You want to look for Mo murdering Ka'ab ibn al-Ashraf? Well blow me down if it's not in Sahih Bukhari.
You want to look for Mo attacking caravans and looting? Well what do you know - it's in Sahih Bukhari.
You want to look for Mo taking slaves from the people he attacked? Surprise, surprise - it's in Sahih Bukhari.
You want to look for Mo selling slaves in the mosque? Yes you got it - it's in Sahih Bukhari.
If that is what you claim is scant few I'm sorry to disappoint you.
April 6, 2007 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 21:49
Pamela:
Misleading the general reader by what you think should be Islam, resorting to media's manipulations and the concept of victimhood in Islam shows the fragility of Islamic identity that you (and Victoria) have repeatedly demonstrated at each aned every rebuttal from the knowledgeable bloggers (some of whom were former Muslims such as Muhammad and Omar Qasim).
This situation of self-denial by you, and the more clamorous Victoria, regarding refuting any empirical or anecdotal evidence to the contrary provided by Mo, Qasim, Rajesh and others, doesn't serve any purpose regardless of how good your intentions might be.
The situation is really hilarious because all you have done is to provide your viewpoint and very cleverly avoid direct confrontation with the opinions of other non-Muslims. Your touchy-feely sloppy rebuttals really don't have any essence. For example, you have not answered directly why your benign interpretation of the vicious, racist surahs of the Quran should supercede or have more eminence than the orthodox interpretations of the mullahs in the shanty madrassas in Pakistan.
Because you (and others like you) don't provide any resolving answers, the reader is rather confounded by what is right about Islam. I do view that you may not be responsible for the very violent acts of the "minority" (?) terrorists from the Islamic bloc, but because the Quran, if
read verbatim, does indeed command mindless genocide against non-Muslims it is not at all clear who is right or should be right - you or the mullah orthodoxy.
One thus concludes that Islam, given the violence, chaos, bedlam, mayhem we see committed by these "minority" (?) Muslims, is indeed a very violent religion and such can indeed be verified from the Quranic surahs. The more liberated, educated and emancipated Muslims like you, who are suppossedly in majority, appear to be held hostage by the minority (radicals), and apparently there is no end to this crisis ! Are the non-Muslims to be blamed for this internal crisis within Islam ?
The more defensive you pose, you become less credible and I might conclude that it may not matter to you. All you are doing is to deflect any cogent argument under the guise of pretense of civility/mannerisms. Perhaps such strict penchant for civility and mannerisms, that are tangential to the topic at hand, is supreme than any argument per Islamic perceptions, but that ain't gonna cut it.
You (and Muslims like you) need to do a much better job at convincing others instead of making a case for Islamic victimhood. Till I see that you can do so, I would certainly hold onto my opinion that Islam is a barbaric religion.
Happy Milad-ul-nabi to you and Victoria
April 6, 2007 6:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 18:09
anonymous-
no one is trying to convince anyone that islam is a religion of peace.
pamela responds to people who present information, some very wrong-
there isnt the compulsive need to convince others of our rightness or even defend when someone writes something wrong- (such as ansering-islam's amateurish attempt at psychoanalying our Prophet(pbuh).
She is simply a rare commodity on these boards-
a panelist that actually cares about and responds to the people who write on her blog.
For that, you are not correctly identifying the intention or mentality of muslims.
There is no backbiting allowed- it is a detestable thing- it is akin to eating the dead flesh of ones brother- that shows how repulsive it is to us to speak about others- behind their back- or in the case of the Prophet(pbuh) one who is unable to answer the charges.
you are simply misunderstanding if you think anyone here is trying to convince you of anything.
Ms Pamela is just responsible to her posters.
and this is her blog, so she can frame her points of view as she chooses.
April 6, 2007 12:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 00:58
Pamela,
You might have convinced yourself, but you have not convinced me that Islam is a religion of peace.
"The reason that Islam suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder is that its founder also suffered from this disorder. I don’t mean this to be taken literally, of course. It is only meant to describe a peculiar phenomenon that went on in Muhammad’s head. When Muhammad first began receiving his "revelations," many of his neighbors in the city of Mecca took it upon themselves to mock and persecute him. Muhammad was a threat both to their immoral lifestyles and to their source of wealth (the pagan idols of the city brought plenty of revenue), and so he had to be stopped, or at least discredited. During this period, Muhammad was humble, devout in many ways, obedient to the message handed down to him, faithful in giving to the poor, and, in general, a fine moral example. In essence, he was like the many fine examples of dedicated Muslims we see in the world today. He preached a religion of peace, and the hadiths we have from this period reflect his peaceful temperament.
Then something happened. Muhammad fled Mecca and moved to Medina, where his political power rapidly increased. Soon he and his followers began raiding caravans to support the fledgling religion,[1] and, while Muhammad’s enemies multiplied, so did his followers. What followed can only be described as a reign of terror for those who refused to submit to Islam. Both men and women were slaughtered for writing satirical poems against Muhammad, and those who left the Islamic faith were exterminated. One woman was murdered in the dark for writing a poem against Muhammad; after she was slain, Muhammad declared that "Two goats won’t butt their heads about her."[2] Hundreds of Jews were beheaded (after surrendering) for standing against Muhammad, and their wives and children were sold into slavery.[3] A blind man who was reportedly more than a hundred years old had his head split open for saying that, if he could only see, he would throw a handful of dust at Muhammad.[4] When a man named Uqba was about to be killed by Muslims and showed concern for his family by asking, "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Muhammad answered by telling the doomed man that Hell would take care of them.[5] (For more on Muhammad’s violent acts, see "Murdered By Muhammad.")
There are, of course, far more examples of violence than the ones listed here, but these should be sufficient to provide a picture of Muhammad’s idea of how Muslims should treat those who refuse to submit to Islam. Was Islam a religion of peace for the 600-900 Jewish men and boys whose heads were piled into trenches after they had surrendered? Was Islam a religion of peace for the woman wh