I have wanted to write about this for a while,   So here goes: The view on this piece has been approved by muslim scholars;

At the moment, the majority of muslims are caught in between two groups saying essentially the same thing; extremists who want to destroy everything and christian/not really christian missionaries trying to project this view about muslims to everyone.

In the middle of this mess is the rest of the ummah. This piece is targeted towards muslim youths who might get confused by the rhetoric by either sides.

The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Those who go to extremes are doomed.” He said it three times. Narrated by Muslim (2670).

This piece looks at war and violence and how it has been viewed by the Ummah for thousands of years; before the recent rise of muslim extremism.

Violence in Islam can be of 3 types

1. Self-defence
2. Retaliatory action
3. Preemptive action

Of these three, only self-defence can be undertaken by an individual or a group. so if someone attacks your home, you have the right to defend your family and property.

Retaliatory action can only be undertaken on a state level. For instance, if your car is hit by someone,  You can't take the law into your hands and go damage the persons' car. The matter must be reported to the relevant authorities for justice. Al-Qisaas (the Law of Equality in punishment) can only be administered by the state law courts.

In a similar vein, Preemptive  violence can only be carried out by the state authorities.

There are verses in the Quran that talk about fighting. The word used here is "Qitaal" which relates mainly to a combat or war situation. These verses are specifically for wars that took place during the time of the prophet and relate only to a war situation. If we lose the context of the verses, we will indeed be lost.

Classical scholars understood war only in the context of the caliphate fighting its perceived enemies.

It is not for any individual or group of individuals to fight for any cause.

The prophet described extremists(Kharijites) as those: They will recite so much of the Qur'an that, when compared to their recitation, you will regard yours to be too little. Nevertheless, what they recite will not have the slightest affect on them. They will leave the religion in the manner of an arrow being shot from the bow.

To be Continued,
tbaba1234

How does this relate to peace? And when compared with Jainism and some strains of Buddhism which advocate total peace.

Also given the acts of the Prophet, the execution of the Jews at Medinah and execution of prisoners of war and the use of slavery as a weapon.

Kay 17: How does this relate to peace? And when compared with Jainism and some strains of Buddhism which advocate total peace.

Also given the acts of the Prophet, the execution of the Jews at Medinah and execution of prisoners of war and the use of slavery as a weapon.

Islam is a practical religion. Wars do happen, it is human nature. We will disagree. The Banu Qurayda jews were judged according to their own law not Islamic law and their action could easily have led to the death of thousands of people. Captives from war was a common practice at the time, Islam regulated a lot of these things and put a human face to them.

True, however its misleading to label islam as a religion that entirely forbids violence. Also, the execution and enslavement of the Jews is taken as an act of the Prophet and which sets precedent. Whether its pagan law or not, the supposed divine law has the final say.

Kay 17: True, however its misleading to label Islam as a religion that entirely forbids violence.

......it sure depends on your understanding of the word "VIOLENCE"

............Do you consider any of the three "phases of violence in Islam" violent?........in the light of tbaba's explanation....?
............tell us what you consider "violence"......?
............so that we can easily find that part of Islam that promotes this (or doesn't forbid that)

Kay 17: Also, the execution and enslavement of the Jews is taken as an act of the Prophet and which sets precedent. Whether its pagan law or not, the supposed divine law has the final say.

well then......
may be it should be said that it isn't too right "as it was taken".......Blame those who "TOOK IT AS....."
Also........Distinguishing between the laws of Islam and the traditional laws isn't too difficult, except that it can not be said that all Muslims bring their "intelligence" to use when asked to choose......Even the most controversial issues in Islam don't even require much intelligence.....only little is required and of course.......... objectivity
.......some just choose to be extreme and some, to be lax......ISLAM isn't at fault here

.....just bring a "piece of Islam" forward and let's see if it would be too difficult to decide where it belongs..........(ISLAM or NON ISLAM)

^^^

Such genocide isn't the act of the Prophet?

You consider it "genocide" because you don't leave in their place and time.
if u existed in Arabia at the time of the prophet, you would most probably own a slave, see nothing wrong in cousin marriage and not consider the marriage of an adult to a minor "pedophilia"............At least, it has not been reported that he was addressed as such or as something similar........
.........i doubt it very much that his aforementioned act would be considered "genocide" too.............

....still typing....
It should be understood that the messenger of Allah was human...
......he once made mistake in his prayer,
.......in one instance, he was asked if his opinion was from Allah or from him.He answered, "from me"
......He once gave a suggestion to a man concerning his method of grafting(a form asexual reproduction in plant)...His idea didn't work out fine...
.......and if it had, most Muslims would have come forward with the usual claim of "miracle of the prophet"....


acknowledging this, it would not be too difficult to observe that the personality of the prophet is not much shielded from his cultural background prophet or no prophet....it should then be forgivable to say that some of his acts were purely cultural and can only be said to be right relative to his time.....

......You cant say for sure that he would do the same if he existed in our time....

Nice response

Though you are frank about the Prophet's weaknesses, doesn't it demonstrate/suggest the fallibility of Islam. Cos Islam is built upon the credibility and character of the Prophet. The Prophet's testimony that God spoke to him, that God sent a message to us through him.

Though thats not in line with the thread, but the Prophet is an example to all muslims despite his weaknesses.

.......typing

carefulme: You consider it "genocide" because you don't leave in their place and time.
if u existed in Arabia at the time of the prophet, you would most probably own a slave, see nothing wrong in cousin marriage and not consider the marriage of an adult to a minor "pedophilia"............At least, it has not been reported that he was addressed as such or as something similar........
.........i doubt it very much that his aforementioned act would be considered "genocide" too.............

....still typing....
It should be understood that the messenger of Allah was human...
......he once made mistake in his prayer,
.......in one instance, he was asked if his opinion was from Allah or from him.He answered, "from me"
......He once gave a suggestion to a man concerning his method of grafting(a form asexual reproduction in plant)...His idea didn't work out fine...
.......and if it had, most Muslims would have come forward with the usual claim of "miracle of the prophet"....


acknowledging this, it would not be too difficult to observe that the personality of the prophet is not much shielded from his cultural background prophet or no prophet....it should then be forgivable to say that some of his acts were purely cultural and can only be said to be right relative to his time.....

......You cant say for sure that he would do the same if he existed in our time....

Derail some more...

Are you willing to unequivocally admit some of the practices/tenets of islam are outdated?

Are you willing to admit the koran is not perfect?

Plurality and democracy, respect for human rights. Personally how far are you willing to go?



For all the above, in your opinion what percentage of the muslim world share your views? Note I am not expecting you to give liberal leaning answers. For instance a hypothetical answer could be 'I fully agree with the practice of child marriages (something most of the rest of the world disagrees with), I'd say 70% of muslims agree with me.'

.............still typing