Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

As I mentioned - it was not a comment on the validity or otherwise of those actions - rather a comment simply in relation to the quote.

People are entitled to their views as to the right or wrong of things, but they should bear some resemblance to the known facts / known facts should be acknowledged.

What do you think all the apologists on this thread do? They:
- ignore or excuse each and every terrorist event (most of them can't bring themselves to even acknowledge the event)
- ignore the number of them
- ignore how they are ongoing in nature
- ignore the breadth of them across the world
- ignore what the terrorist shout as they commit such
- ignore the belief systems the terrorists hold
- don't want to think about what the above things mean as a whole, nor why such exists...
...even before we get to intolerance in the name of religion

...and apologists, while doing the above, criticise those who criticise the above.

We shouldn't engage in behaviours we criticise others for. If we ask others to critically evaluate something we have an issue with, we should also critically evaluate our own beliefs.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/pope-condemns-philippines-cathedral-blast-which-killed-many/news-story/cc2a39507aeed20fe7b4ce453a9bcc19

In an incredibly sad day, the below happened. I never thought I would see it in either Australia or NZ, though the lack of conversation around this subject has long been worrying.

Hopefully police find and charge every person who contributed to this disgraceful act of terror.

As a note, though the below article calls it an act of terror, many sources, including NZ's Prime Minister have called it an act of violence, which is quite racist (as were it a muslim who perpetrated it on a church, they would by now be calling it an act of terror).

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/gunman-opens-fire-in-christchurch-mosque/news-story/6f6ce5dc9db6cde5edf5ae778b6da368

Until more details are known, it seems like a revenge killing coupled to the desire for recognition using shock value. Knowledge is replacing faith, planetwide.

New Zealand is not Muslim nation. An attack like this should be expected when governments coddle Islam. People grow inpatient and angry, some of them are bound to act. I am not condoning any terror attack, but wanting revenge is human nature. Remember we are dealing with a faith that inspires mass murders to advance that faith. Until Muslims are called out and challenged about their deadly belief system things like this will happen. Only God knows who this guy inspired to do the same.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/sri-lanka-bombings-latest-updates/2019/04/22/f2afe32a-6531-11e9-a698-2a8f808c9cfb_story.html?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.05b6b44a8277<br />

Check.



Check.



Check.



Nope. Islam is a religion based around using violence against people who disagree with you.

This is what bullies do.

Should I ask you your own question? Have you read the Quran? Are you aware of the context of any verses who are referring to?

There is no doubts many verses in Quran talk about killing but those are all for self defense and against oppression. It is important for someone reading and quoting from Quran to understand the context.

Quran has even set rules for war in self defense. One shall not kill animals, children, women, old people, people is places of worship and those who surrender. One can't start a war without prior warning. One can't cut of natural resources such as water, trees and food supply etc. These are rules for war for self defense. You name a single non Muslim country who use these rules in war. In fact, war for non Muslim countries is all about killing helpless people to spread terror, killing animals, destroying natural environment and cutting off all natural resources. World shall be thankful to the rules Islam has given even for war.

If Quran was all about killing, 1/4th of world population is Muslim who believe in Quran. If Quran teaches violence then none will survive.

Are you aware there is no real context to the Koran. The Hadith has to be read with it to get any semblance of context. The context is also the first lie learned by apologists. If you cannot do any better do not waste your time.

Quote those verses for us.

https://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/badr.aspx
Someone is lying.

There was another poster on these forums that said Islams early expansion was one of survival....where they somehow kept conquering (note, this is exactly the correct use of the word) vast amounts of lands 'to survive'.

Somehow, in order to 'survive', they needed to conquer lands all the way to India, and all the way through Africa to the Atlantic ocean, and up into Europe. No sane person can label such vast conquests over a 200 year period as 'self defense'. These conquests of course, were carried out by those who had a right to the best understanding of Mohammed's words - the first, and early generations.

And with all that occurred in the 200 odd years after Mohammed's death - what is the context of Surah 9? Where in the timeline of Mohammed's life is it? In terms of this topic you raised - what does it command throughout it? How do those commands fit into the Islamic concept of abrogation? And do those commands support the conquest of early Islam?

Islam today, learnt through Imams, is quite different, and in most respects peaceful.

The problem of course, doesn't arise from the vast percentage that are peaceful (as side notes: the term 'Islam is a religion of peace' only arose in around 1930, and the reinterpretation of 'jihad' is a rather recent phenomenon in the history of Islam)

However, with the rise of the internet, there are those who wanted / want to get back to the original meanings, and with the internet, they have the ability to study it for themselves. Then within this context, there is propoganda out there for those seeking to return to the original Islam - including organsations dedicated to violent Islam - which is what Al Qieda, and ISIS have variously tried to do - use the internet to teach was they see as the truth of Islam. It's not just their province either, with Hizb-ut-Tahrir (last I looked 1,000,000 members), and many other Islamist organisations use to further their very Islamist agendas.

The problem that exists, as previously stated , isn't caused by the vast percentage that are peaceful, nor by those who do not sympathise with terrorism in the name of Islam.

Is that your source of information? You are being influenced by negative propaganda against Islam. What is the authenticity of this source?

All you need to do is search where Badr is and you will see its near Medina. This should be enough for your to figure out what were people of Macca doing in Badr? Of course they came there to fight with Prophet Muhammad and his followers who had recently migrated from Mecca to Medina.

In the Qur’an, in all the verses of war, you will find this: “And never start aggression for that Allah does not love the aggressors”.
Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) lived in Mecca for 13 years after the revelation to him started. He never called for a revolution, rebellion acts or disrespect to the other members.
People of old scriptures (i.e. Jews and Christians) immigrated to Madina before Islam because they knew the seal prophet would end up settling there. Medina is a city in the desert of Paran filled with palms. So, after 11 years of the revelation, the people of Medina knew about the Prophet. The sent ambassadors to Mecca and asked to host him and make him their leader. The prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) accepted their offer and immigrated when the people of Mecca took a decision to kill him. If you read about the story of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), you would know that he was chased by the people of Mecca, who wanted to kill him before he arrives to Medina.

Being kicked out of Mecca and their assets were looted, immigrants requested their monies from the Meccian people, where the latter refused. So the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) decided to intercept the route of a Meccian caravan to take amounts equal to his money. A reader of the story of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) would clearly find that he did not want to just attack the caravan but to send a message to Mecca that they will not surrender to the aggression against their money. Plus, Mecca wished to kill Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) earlier so it was a state of war. The caravan that the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) wanted to intercept took another route and the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) did not chase them.
Meccians became so arrogant and decided to attack Medina and kill the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). An army moved from Mecca to Medina. The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) met them outside Medina, around a well called Badr, near to Medina. The Muslims defeated the infidels of Mecca. Who was the aggressor here? Can you tell?

This source uses Islam's own words to back up what they say. That is the authenticity. Unless the Koran and the Hadith are not authentic this source is valid and what they say they can prove. You are just making things up like apologists do, acting like they know more than actual Islamic literature says. That is not going to work here.

Don't waste your time, Coldjoint is a virulent Islamophobic bigot, he's not interested in having a conversation or learning, just in spreading hate.

There's a few like that on this site, best thing to do is put them on ignore.

You can listen to this gossip if you wish. He is a dyed in the wool coward and is scared shitless of Islam. Just the kind of infidel you prefer.

He uses ignore because any debate on his part would expose his lack of any sort of knowledge on any subject.

One quick question that Izzy did, or would, not answer, what are the positives for a non-Muslim in Islam?

Did you search Badr is google maps? and did you even read my post?

Did you source your garbage? No, you did not.

It is a very good question and I am glad you asked. Some of previous reply kind of hint at those right but I am more than happy to put together several pieces in this one post to answer your question little more effectively.

The Islamic Shariah provides a different set of obligations and rights of the non-Muslim residents in the Islamic society. It may be sufficient in rebuttal of this misconception to quote the general ruling mentioned in the books of Islamic jurisprudence:

“Non-Muslims are entitled for that which Muslims are entitled. They are also obligated to do that which Muslims are obligated.”

This is the general rule and from it emanates the just and equitable laws giving the non-Muslim residents in an Islamic state their rights to security, private property, religious observance, etc.

Islam permits religious discussions and dialogues with non-Muslims, commanding Muslims to adhere to the best methodology in any discussions and dialogues with the non-Muslims. Allah (the Exalted and Majestic) states in the Qur’an:

And dispute you not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)’. (Al-`Ankabut 29:46)

Allah (Exalted be He) addresses those of other faiths and religions, saying in the Qur’an:

Say: ‘Do you see what it is you invoke besides Allah? Show me what it is they have created on earth, or have they a share in the heavens bring me a book (revealed) before this, or any remnant of knowledge (you may have), if you are telling the truth! (Al-Ahqaf 46:4)

Islam forbids forceful measures to convert people from other faiths, as stated in the verse of the Qur’an:

If it had been your Lord’s will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! (Yunus 10:99)

Both the Qur’an and the Sunnah, (prophetic traditions of the Prophet) illustrate that freedom of religion is available to members of the society under Islamic Shariah. Muslim history has numerous examples of the tolerance shown to non-Muslim subjects, while many other societies were intolerant towards Muslims and even their own people. Muslims must deal justly with all other humans who have not begun any hostilities with the Muslims. Allah states in the Qur’an:

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just. (Al-Mumtahanah 60:8)

Those who wage war against Islam, show enmity and force the Muslims into exile, have a different treatment according to Islam. Allah states in the Qur’an:

Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong. (Al-Mumtahanah 60:9)

Interactions between Muslims and non-Muslims are based on cordial and just manners. Commercial transactions are permitted with resident and non-resident non-Muslims of the Islamic society. A Muslim may eat the food of Jews and Christians. A male Muslim may marry a Jewish or a Christian woman as will be explained below. We must remember that Islam gives special attention and importance on raising a family. Allah states in the Qur’an:

This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good). (Al-Ma’idah 5:5)

It is as brief as I can be without going into unnecessary details but if you want me to explain any particular aspect of non Muslims rights, please let me know.

In other words, you have no authenticity of the source.