Explain to me how Islam is a peaceful religion

[robinvanpersie]

So he killed prisoners of war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war


Your prophet is fucked kiddo.


Oh and he claimed it was " a command from god" haha, sooo done.

Why are quoting Wikipedia you know it is not a reliable source as anyone can change the information. As someone has already mentioned, prophet Muhammad pbuh did not even judge them let alone execute them. The prophet pbuh let them choose their own arbitrator which they decided to choose Sa'ad ibn Muadh who decided that they should be tried according to Torah. Also they were not civilians. They attacked Muslim's within the city of Medina and they did not help to defend the city of Medina when it was under siege and they conspired with the enemy to compass the destruction of the Muslims. All explained in the Islamic digital Library:

In A.D. 70, the Roman general, Titus, captured Jerusalem and put an end to the Jewish rule of Palestine. Following the Roman conquest, many of the Jews left their homeland and wandered into other countries. Some Jewish tribes crossed the Syrian desert and entered the Arabian peninsula where they settled in Hijaz. In course of time they built up numerous colonies in Medina and between Medina and Syria. They are also said to have converted many Arabs to Judaism.

At the beginning of the seventh century A.D., there were three Jewish tribes living in Medina (Yathrib). They were Banu Qainuka'a, Banu Nadhir and Banu Qurayza. All three tribes were rich and powerful, and also, they were more civilized than the Arabs. Whereas the Arabs were all farmers, the Jews were the entrepreneurs of industry, business and commerce in Arabia, and they controlled the economic life of Medina (Yathrib). The two Arab tribes – Aus and Khazraj – were debt-ridden to the Jews perennially.

Besides Medina, the strong centers of the Jews in Hijaz were Khyber, Fadak and Wadi-ul-Qura. The lands in these valleys were the most fertile in all Arabia, and their Jewish cultivators were the best farmers in the country.

The migration of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, from Makkah to Medina (then Yathrib), brought him into contact with the Jews for the first time. At the beginning they were friendly to him. He granted them the famous Charter of Medina, and they acknowledged him the ruler of their city, and agreed to abide by his decisions in all disputes. They also agreed to defend the city in the event of an invasion by an enemy.

But, unfortunately, this friendship did not last long. It soon became obvious that the Jews had given their friendship to Muhammad with many reservations. In their own interest, they ought to have acted their part of the agreement faithfully but they did not. For this change in their attitude, there were many reasons, among them:

1. When Muhammad arrived in Medina, he reformed the life of the Arabs or whoever became a Muslim. He taught them to be temperate and moderate in everything, and taught them the value of discipline in life. They stopped drinking and gambling both of which were the causes of their ruin in the past; and they gave up taking loans at high rates of interest from the Jews.

When the Arabs stopped taking loans and paying interest on them, a rich source of revenue suddenly dried up for the Jews, and they bitterly resented this. They could now see that their grip on the economic life of Medina was beginning to loosen.

2. The Jews also realized that Islam was an enemy of the system of exploitation, and of the capitalist system. They began to see Islam as a threat to their economic interests.

3. The Jewish priests hated Muhammad as much as the Jewish money-lenders. He had shown to the Jews how their priest followed deviant interpretations of their scriptures, and how they distorted their text. The priests, on their part, tried to convince their flocks that Muhammad did not have knowledge of their scriptures, and they tried to point out to them the “errors” in the Qur’an.

The Jews also believed that they were safe only as long as the two Arab tribes of Medina, the Aus and the Khazraj, were fighting against each other. Peace between the Aus and the Khazraj, they thought, would pose a threat to their survival in Arabia. For this reason, they were always fomenting trouble between them.

Of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qainuka'a and the Banu Nadhir had already been expelled after the battles of Badr and Uhud respectively, and they had left with all their baggage, and herds of animals, and had resettled in Khyber.

The third and the last tribe of the Jews in Medina was the Banu Qurayza. According to the terms of the Charter of Medina, it was their duty to take an active part in defending the city during the siege of A.D. 627. But not only they did not contribute any men or materials during the siege but were actually caught conspiring with the enemy to compass the destruction of the Muslims. Some Jews even attacked a house in which many Muslim women and children had taken refuge as it was considered a safer place for them than their own houses.

If Amr ibn Abd Wudd had overcome the resistance of the Muslims, the Jews would have attacked them from the rear. Between the pagans of Makkah and the Jews of Medina, the Muslims would have been massacred. It was only the presence of mind of Muhammad and the daring of Ali that averted such a disaster.

R.V.C. Bodley

The Jews were not at first inclined to listen to Abu Sofian's proposal (to attack Muslims from the rear), but after a while they compromised and agreed to betray the Moslems when the time seemed opportune. (The Messenger – the Life of Mohammed)

The conduct of the Jews during the siege of Medina was high treason against the State. Therefore, when the confederate army broke up and the danger to Medina was averted, the Muslims turned their attention to them.

The Jews shut themselves up in their forts and the Muslims besieged them. But some days later, they requested the Prophet to raise the siege, and agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration.

The Prophet allowed the Jews to choose their own arbitrator. Here they made a very costly blunder. They should have chosen Muhammad himself – the embodiment of mercy – to be their judge. If they had, he would have allowed them to depart from Medina with their baggage and their animals, and the incident would have been closed.

But the Jews didn't choose Muhammad as their judge. Instead, they chose Sa'ad ibn Muadh, the leader of their former allies, the Aus. Sa'ad was a man who was utterly reckless with life – his own as well as that of others.

Sa'ad had received a mortal wound during the battle of the Trench, and in fact died soon after he had passed judgment on the fate of the Jews. He declared treason to be an unpardonable offense, and his verdict was inexorable. He invoked the Torah, the Scripture of the Jews, and sentenced all men to death, and women and children to slavery. His sentence was carried out on the spot.

The Jews of the tribe of Qurayza were massacred in the spring of A.D. 627. From this date, the Jews ceased to be an active force in the social, economic and political life of Medina.
https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-...slims-and-jews

[Empire]

Why are quoting Wikipedia you know it is not a reliable source as anyone can change the information. As someone has already mentioned, prophet Muhammad pbuh did not even judge them let alone execute them. The prophet pbuh let them choose their own arbitrator which they decided to choose Sa'ad ibn Muadh who decided that they should be tried according to Torah. Also they were not civilians. They attacked Muslim's within the city of Medina and they did not help to defend the city of Medina when it was under siege and they conspired with the enemy to compass the destruction of the Muslims. All explained in the Islamic digital Library:

Well lets see. Wikipedia: Cited 4 authors, all historians.

Your source: Cited nobody. Put personal opinions in the article.

Wikipedia is not a place where you can edit anything and everything anymore. But more so, it's not edited because you can fact check the sources provided.
--------------------------------------------

Also:

The spoils of battle, including the enslaved women and children of the tribe, were divided up among the Islamic warriors that had participated in the siege and among the emigrees from Mecca (who had hitherto depended on the help of the Muslims native to Medina.[65][66]

Oh yeah, taking slaves....

[Frought]

Do you just not understand what's wrong with that?
-----------------------
Example:

The US defeats some small village. They then round up all the men, dig a mass grave, and start shooting them into the grave.



Of course this is barbaric, but that's the concept.
--------------------

Muhammad executed PoW's.
Executed them without trial claiming it was "god's command".


That's cold-blooded murder that your "prophet" did.

Seriously? He didn't kill Prisoners of War omg... Prisoners of War means he killed all of them, but he only killed the men of Banu Qurayza as they joined the enemy and they were traitors as they violated the promise. Do you know the difference between Prisoners of War and Killing only some people because of something they did?

Seriously, I guess you're 9.

- - - Updated - - -

Well lets see. Wikipedia: Cited 4 authors, all historians.

Your source: Cited nobody. Put personal opinions in the article.

Wikipedia is not a place where you can edit anything and everything anymore. But more so, it's not edited because you can fact check the sources provided.
--------------------------------------------

Also:



Oh yeah, taking slaves....

Aaaaand, It's taken from websites that don't like religions or particularly Islam. I'm a fucking Muslim, who would you believe? Well, go fuck yourself if you don't want to understand this shit I'm done..

[Empire]

Seriously? He didn't kill Prisoners of War omg... Prisoners of War means he killed all of them

Frought, just look up what a prisoner of war is. I'm really tired of babysitting you here.

Aaaaand, It's taken from websites that don't like religions or particularly Islam. I'm a fucking Muslim, who would you believe? Well, go fuck yourself if you don't want to understand this shit I'm done..

Lets see.........

Work from a historian who has evidence of what happened or some 15 year old muslim on the internet who just said he supported Hitler's Final Solution.


Do you really think that just because you are a muslim you are somehow better than actual historians who dedicate their life's work to this field?

================================================== ==



At this point in the discussion I've won entirely. I've put sources, actual sources, you have none.

You also have demonstrated you don't know what a PoW is, you don't know why killing them is wrong, and you've shown ignorance in both what is considered a war-crime and what actually happened in Islamic history.


I really couldn't ask for a bigger win given your disposition.

[MistaSerious]

Most of your points are invalid stereotypes. So how about you get some real points? 1 in 4 people are muslim, if it wasn't peaceful you'd be dead.

[generator]

now people are gonna talk about people joining isis which im not a fan off

[Empire]

Most of your points are invalid stereotypes. So how about you get some real points? 1 in 4 people are muslim, if it wasn't peaceful you'd be dead.

The difference is Islam and Muslims.

[Frought]

Frought, just look up what a prisoner of war is. I'm really tired of babysitting you here.

You're the one who should like for that shit...

Lets see.........

Work from a historian who has evidence of what happened or some 15 year old muslim on the internet who just said he supported Hitler's Final Solution.

>Believing what I said lawl

Do you really think that just because you are a muslim you are somehow better than actual historians who dedicate their life's work to this field?

But when it comes to the historians who distort the history, then I'm better. And I also taken my sources from historians?!!!

At this point in the discussion I've won entirely. I've put sources, actual sources, you have none.

You also have demonstrated you don't know what a PoW is, you don't know why killing them is wrong, and you've shown ignorance in both what is considered a war-crime and what actually happened in Islamic history.


I really couldn't ask for a bigger win given your disposition.

When I prove your wrong, you keep saying another shit. I'm the one who won this shit as when I told you all the story you keep saying bullshit and cannot answer me with sources. If you want the sources then I'll give it to you.

Ok, let me clean up this shit in your mind:

>first, claiming that he executed civilians
>after i show you that they weren't, you claimed that he executed prisoner of wars
>and so on... good luck with your shit mate

Let's say he killed the prisoners of wars WHO they betrayed him and had a promise with him but violated it and didn't kill the other prisoners of war.. What is your fucking problem now?! try to claim some other shit.

[Empire]

You're the one who should like for that shit...

I'm sitting here explaining to you what a prisoner of war is 3+ times now. Do you think not knowing the definition of word is going to benefit you in this discussion?

But when it comes to the historians who distort the history, then I'm better. And I also taken my sources from historians?!!!

>Claims historians "distort history"
>Claims he gets his information from said historians.
If you can demonstrate that these...4 historians are all "distorting" history, that'd be nice. But seeing as how your argument was "just take my word for it, I'm a muslim" I doubt your going to be up to that task.


But good luck. I'm rooting for you.

When I prove your wrong, you keep saying another shit. I'm the one who won this shit as when I told you all the story you keep saying bullshit and cannot answer me with sources. If you want the sources then I'll give it to you.

I've answered you with sources 3 times now.

I'm waiting on those sources.

Let's say he killed the prisoners of wars WHO they betrayed him and had a promise with him but violated it and didn't kill the other prisoners of war.. What is your fucking problem now?! try to claim some other shit.

You just made up a story. I mean you even started with "let's say".

These people were not given a trial, they were simply lined up an executed lol.
-------------------------

And this is already an age-old tactic among warlords. Claim betrayal regardless if it's true, siege the city, loot the city.(kill the men, take the women/children as slaves/booty).


There is no way for you to paint Muhammad as the good guy here.


I'm sorry kid, you're prophet is just like every other warlord.

[Jew]

I love this debate because its pointless.

a religion cannot be "peaceful" because religion is the main reason mankind has been fighting one another for 4000 years now.

anyone claiming the quran promotes peaceful acts is an ignorant prick because it clearly says says in it that murdering a person which is not believing in islam is completely acceptable and even MANDATORY

everywhere muslims flee away from because they need money/they are getting targeted for something they live peacefully for a couple of years and then try to force their stupid shariah bullshit on the local people!

France,Sweden,Germany,Spain LOOK AT IT,everywhere where there are muslim migrants - there is conflict and violence.


here is why:

 

Qur'an (5:3) - "This day have I perfected your religion for you." This verse is often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst.

Qur'an (18:26) - "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government." This was probably intended as a slam against polytheists and the Christian belief in the Trinity, but it has also been used as the basis for criticizing earthly governments.

Qur'an (19:64) - "And we do not descend but by the command of your Lord; to Him belongs whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these, and your Lord is not forgetful."

Qur'an (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers."

Qur'an (63:8) - "...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers; but the hypocrites know not." The "hypocrites" are defined as Muslims in name only, those who do not submit to the theocracy of Allah.

Qur'an (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose.

Qur'an (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." The word 'friend' is Awliyaa which is inclusive of friends, protectors and helpers - the components of civil society. See also verse 5:51

Qur'an (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper."

Qur'an (28:17) - "O my Lord! For that Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace on me, never shall I be a help to those who sin!" It is difficult to reconcile this verse with the civic duty of a public office holder in a pluralistic society.

Qur'an (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..." Oddly enough, this verse is sometimes used in an attempt to make the case that Muslims should respect a non-Muslim civil government. But a careful reading makes it clear that the rulers Muslims are to obey are from among their own body of believers. This verse commands strict obedience to the leader (even if he steals and flogs them, according to a hadith reported by Sahih Muslim). How can this refer to a non-Muslim leader when other parts of the Qur'an call for violent Jihad against persecution from non-believers?

See also 9:29, which establishes the ideal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims.

the quran promotes rape:

 

Qur'an (2:282) - Establishes that a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man's in court (there is no "he said/she said" gridlock in Islam).

Qur'an (24:4) - "And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses (to adultery), flog them..." Strictly speaking, this verse addresses adultery (revealed at the very time that Muhammad's favorite wife was being accused of adultery on the basis of only three witnesses coincidentally enough). However it is a part of the theological underpinning of the Sharia rule on rape, since if there are not four male witnesses, the rape "did not occur".

Qur'an (24:13) - "Why did they not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought witnesses they are liars before Allah."

Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." There is no such thing as rape in marriage, as a man is permitted unrestricted sexual access to his wives.

[Confluency]

ALLAHU AKBAR.
LET US PRAISE MUHAHMUD THE CHILD RAPIST AND MURDERER AND LET US GO TALK ABOUT HOW PEACEFUL WE ARE AND GO STRAP SOME C4 TO OUR CHILDREN TO SHOW JUST HOW PEACEFUL WE ARE.

[robinvanpersie]

The difference is Islam and Muslims.

But if Islam really was a violent religion why are the overwhelmingly majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims peaceful? There are two reasons, and be logical about it.

Either the 1.6 billion Muslims do not understand Islam.

Or either you don't understand Islam.

Which one is more likely?

[Empire]

But if Islam really was a violent religion why are the overwhelmingly majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims peaceful? There are two reasons, and be logical about it.

Either the 1.6 billion Muslims do not understand Islam.

Or either you don't understand Islam.

Which one is more likely?

I really don't understand you people. I defend your religion by seperating the Muslims from Islam, that's ok. But when I point out that the actions of Muslims are different from Islam itself, that's heresy.

It's the same thing. You just don't like it when you can't claim Muslims for everything good they've done as well.

====================

I'd go with the 1.6 billion.
The average person does not understand their religion and simply believes in it because of indoctrination.

When asked "how do you know that is true?" I could probably ask that a couple of times with you and the answer I'd get would eventually be "because I believe it's true" or "faith.".


For instance if I asked you "how do you know the quran is true?"(bypassing a few steps) your answer will most likely be :

[kakadz]

No seriously, there's aproximatively 1.9 billion Muslims in the world , and you and you're religions, catholic , jew , and other stuff that i have no concern in know are all devided into multiple of religions ffs , just think about it, if we were all terrorists you would be all dead already, besides it's your media that implemented this idea of terrorism into your head

[Confluency]

No seriously, there's aproximatively 1.9 billion Muslims in the world , and you and you're religions, catholic , jew , and other stuff that i have no concern in know are all devided into multiple of religions ffs , just think about it, if we were all terrorists you would be all dead already, besides it's your media that implemented this idea of terrorism into your head

So why is that a vast majority of terrorist acts are committed by those under the Muslim faith both in the United States and across the globe. And let's talk about the non-radical Muslims who view their religion as "peaceful."
Here is a study done back 2007 showing how much Muslims support terrorist attacks. So maybe it's not just the media implementing the idea of terrorism but more so that although a small percentage would carry out with attacks on civilians a large percentage (relative to other religions/faiths) support those attacks.

"In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified,[27] in Europe:

64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.

In mainly Muslim countries:

45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often. "

Religion of peace until the religion is ridiculed huh?

"Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be
unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is their destination."
Quran 9:73

So much for a tiny majority.