Do (We) Muslims hate Jews and Chrisitians?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Never_Again1939, Nov 28, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. One may think so.

    They suspect that Arabs and Muslims hate them, blaming them for Israel’s misdeeds and past mistakes such as trying to kill God’s prophets and messengers (peace be upon them). They say that Muslims still remember with bitterness how the Jews in Madinah tried to kill the Prophet (pbuh), broke their pact and betrayed him by siding with his enemies.

    Many Christians suspect similar feelings for other historical reasons: Crusades in the Middle Ages, colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries, recent wars on Muslims and suppression of Muslim minorities.

    The Jews and the Christians are both right and wrong. There are no simple answers to these complex questions but let me try to explain. History is a great teacher but it is important that we use — and not abuse — its lessons. Students of history can be divided into three groups: Those who learn from the “rights” and build on them, those who ignore the lessons of the “wrongs” and repeat them, and those who get obsessed and live and die for them. It is much safer not to read history at all than to misread it.

    Misreading may be intentional or it may occur out of ignorance. With the latter it is much easier to deal. You may retrain, improve education and provide explanations.

    The problem lies with those who misinterpret history in order to serve self-interests and support predetermined convictions. They act like smart lawyers who laboriously look up laws and precedents supporting their cases while ignoring everything that contradicts them. Then they interpret what they have found in a way that suits their arguments. No guilt is felt because rivals do the same. It is a game where you are only punished if you fail to win your argument. Fanatics, paranoid individuals and seekers of fame, status and special interests may be the worst offenders — but they are not alone. Almost all of us practice selective reading and intentional misreading for various reasons. Collective passionate stands and thoughts, such as rallying around the flag or supporting patriotic and religious causes, make normally fair and balanced individuals perform “pick and choose” reading without the slightest intellectual guilt. They, too, assume the other side is doing the same.

    Muslim fanatics are as guilty as any of such practices. Not only so they misinterpret the facts of history, they intentionally misrepresent the holy books — the Qur’an, the Torah and the Bible. Take for example our position toward the “people of the book” — i.e. Christians and Jews. Allah clearly differentiates between enemies and friends. He says in Surah Almumtehinah, Verses 7-9:

    7. It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For Allah has power (over all things); and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.)

    Still, many choose to ignore these commands, find circumstantial verses or parts of verses about certain past events, and apply them to the present. For example, Allah says in Surah Albaqrah, Verses 191-193:

    191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

    192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    193. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

    Fanatics would take the first half of the first sentence of the first verse, and ignore the rest. They would concentrate on the slay part and omit all the peace-seeking, mercy and forgiving commands. Allah strongly prohibits this practice as he says in the same surah: 84. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty.

    I don’t need to pass any more judgment on partisans, ours and others. Allah says it all.
     
  2. I am not sure if this is here to attract sensible comment or scorn - as it is not in naafi bar I'll give it benefit of the doubt.
    From long exposure to Middle Eastern Arab peoples, I formed the opinion that no one who is not born into the Muslim faith can understand how their minds work. Their belief is so strong that they exceed the most religious of any Christian faith. This gives them the idea that their - and only their - opinion or attitude is right and everyone elses is wrong because it does not concur with their religious teaching.
    With this inbred background it is unlikely that any Christian/Muslim debate will ever be settled. We just have to accept that they are different from us and get on with our respective lives. Fighting each other will never work - martyrdom is attractive to some. What we should seek is some form of voluntary and mutual apartheid. They live in their world their way and we live in our world our way.
     
  3. (I hope I've got this bloody quote thing right, I always seem to get it wrong!)

    OldRC, with the greatest respect, I have to completely disagree. I've also lived in a Muslim region, and have known Muslim neighbours whom my family had perfectly cordial relations with. I was also raised in a region where Apartheid was an everyday reality - and what a foul reality it was as well.

    Surely the point being made here is that extremists of any religious persuasion will cherry pick what suits their twisted cause best (in fact, you can apply that to any group that refuses to countenance or tolerate a view different to it's own - pro-hunters, anti abortionists, animal rights activists etc etc).

    The best way to spike any extremists' power base is to increase everyones' exposure to other faiths, view points, beliefs - in a climate of tolerance, compromise and compassion.

    I was deeply impressed with an article I read about a Mosque somewhere in Sweden which used to actively encourage the local (presumably Christian) population to visit it, to tour their museum, take part in cultural events, with no other agenda than to increase understanding and reduce prejudice.

    Why can't the Muslim moderates in UK start a similar initiative? I, for one, would love to see more of their art and architecture, listen to their stories, music etc.

    No one's going to change this pagan's beliefs, but I have the greatest respect for anyone else's - isn't that what we should be encouraging?
     
  4. I'm sure it's the same wherever there is an argument, conflict or difference of opinion. The arguments you use are selective, Nobody usesarguments facts or figures that counter your ideas.
     
  5. Ninety per cent of muslim's are peace loving people that are trying to support their families and make their way in the world. Maybe its higher I don't know. The bottom line is that 1-5% that have been deceived/convinced that the west is evil. Our way of life is evil. To those people we are crusaders and infidels. We don't believe so we are the enemy. To them men, women and children are all fair game with no destinctions made. To this small minority of muslim's who view themselves as soldiers of Islam there can be no negotiation. Their terms are not something we can accept in any event because to do so would force us to convert to Islam. Convert or die was the watchword when Mohamed spread Islam through the world. This time round we arent being given even that choice.
     
  6. Tomohawk6, Islam wasnt spread using that watchword, in the early days of Islam, the prophet and his succesors preferred that those under their new rule would keep their religion. They sent "ambassadors" to the churches and synagouges of the people within those "freed" lands. They had pacts with the different christian churches in Syria, Egypt and Abyssinia (Who gave his people the protection they needed when his clan (The Ruling tribe in Mecca) were giving the new converts all the shit they've got". Economically, it was more worth-while for those people to keep their religion, why? Because under those pacts, the Prophet and his succesors swore to protect the people of the book (Jews and Christians) in return for a tax called Jizya. They werent treated like 2nd class citizens and were also paying a tax lower than the tax the Roman Authorities placed on those people. Many people however converted to Islam because of its strong message of peace and harmony and equality between the followers of Islam. Islam is not a religion for the Arabs only, it was a religion for everybody. It didnt discriminate between different followers. Hence people converted because of the Essence of Islam.
    Those who retaliated and fought against the Muslims were given what they wanted, a war. This war would stop if they surrendered, accepted Islam or Died in battle.
     

  7. That sounds a whole lot like extortion to me.
     
  8. nope not at all. Collecting taxes was the norm in that period. Later in the Islamic Golden Age of the Abbasid Empire and the Mughal Empire In India this practice would be abolished and they would only have to pay taxes on their income as with Muslims who already pay a yearly amount to charity called Zakat.

    If taxes werent collected, the people under Islamic Protection werent flogged, killed or Jailed, No threats were made even though there are exceptions to this rule, unlike the Roman treatment of those who didnt pay their dues.
     
  9. Is Infidel considered a nice polite word ? the sort of thing you'd call a house guest to his face, or ?
    john
     
  10. Mainly for Prodigal but I obviously did not make myself totally clear. Firstly, let me get past the "Some of my friends are Muslims" declaration that seems mandatory in these days of excess p.c. I had then, and have now, numerous friends in Arab countries and in UK where I reside. All jolly nice people with all the pleasant attributes and culture that Prodigal lists. However - and here comes the rub - I have seen them respond to others (even in their own faith) and once or twice to me in a manner not often found amongst Christians where their religious induction takes over and they conduct themselves as I said in my previous posting.
    Just as examples of the sort of thing I mean, think of the man with the hook and the scenes at Arafat's funeral. Not fair to tar all with same brush but it is that - to me, boiling over that makes a differance.
    It is the inability of most of us us in the Western world to show patience in the face of what, for ease of reference only, I would call ranting that led me to the apartheid word. I came across this in South Africa in the mid-1950s and surely do not mean it in the practical form it then had but as a almost literal translation of apartness or seperation. Oil and water can be mixed but do not combine. I take all individuals as I find them but I am expecially wary of Muslims whose very confining religion is only just below their skin. Oh! and no snide reference meant when I say skin.
     
  11. OldRC, appreciate your response.

    I have just started reading a book called The Deacon and the Jewess, which charts the early persecution of the Jews - only just started it so can't tell you more.

    The title comes from the event of an English Deacon being burned at the stake in the early 1200s because he fell in love with a Jewess and converted to Judaism. Interestingly enough however, it was England who gave sanctuary to many Russian Jews in the late 1800s when they were being chucked out of Russia...... which appears to have been a rare period of tolerance towards Jews in English history.

    At the moment, Catholic culture is of some interest for me, and aspects of that seem to be unbelievably rigid and dogmatic.

    I don't plan on knocking mainstream religion, (really...) but isn't so much of the problem the general view that one's religion is what everyone else should be following and the myriad of rules that are more about social control than communicating with the Divine?
     
  12. Our original poster is trying to convince us here on ARRSE, that not all Muslims are fanatical zealots hell-bent on the destruction of the west.

    He doesn't need to bother with that approach, most of us who post here recognise that but what is rising its ugly head in this country and has been evident for a number of years, is the preferential treatment that some, not all, members of the Muslim community expect from us.

    The UK has grown into, what I would call, a very tolerant society. We respect your wish to worship God differently from us and we respect your other customs but what we as the citizens of this country expect is for you to obey our laws and to view yourself as citizens of our country.

    What is becoming evident is that a growing number of the muslim community do not view this as we do or want to upholod our tolerant views. Some expect us to change our system, or country to suit yourself and your religion. For example, the burning of the Mecca signs on Bingo halls as one example.

    Also we have allowed the building of many Mosques within this country but, I give this as an example, the fact the Saudi Arabia will not allow the building of Churches or even the idea of anyother religious practice within its borders.

    You also stated that not all Muslims are Arabs, true but what I have had mentioned to myself (from a non-arab muslim) is that there is a caste sytem in evidence whereby Arab muslims view all other non-arabs as second class citizens (see the troubles in Sudan as evidence of this).

    I am not trying to ridicule you or hack down your original post but what is needed is a more tolerant approach from certain members of the Muslim community. Some have mentioned the word Apartheid previosly, this will only lead to greater conflict in my view. What is needed is an integration within the UK of the Muslim community, this appraoch of "multi-culturism" which is favoured by the socialists has not worked and will not work. It breeds resentement and we now have Ghettos for muslims only. For example look at Holland, germany and Denamark. They are witnessing racist incidents of a like not seen there for decades.

    This is only my opinion but we need to look at this socialist experiment that is going wrong and rectify these faults before its too late.
     
  13. I suggest you read "The decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude" (written by a Jew, if that matters) for a realistic history of all the oppressed non-muslims under Islam. Just one point, how can Muslim "tolerance" explain the genocide (a careful use of the legal term here) of the Christian Armenians in 1915?.
     
  14. DuLai wrote
    What I wrote was voluntary apartheid. I'll stay in my garden, you stay in yours. If I choose to cross into your garden, your ideas prevail. In mine, if you come across, your conduct is governed by my way of doing things. I am, I suppose, what would be described in any enquiry as an institultional racist. However, I (hope that) I cause no harm because I exercise a voluntary apartheid. I give myself no cause to revert to my basic attitude.
     
  15. ORC

    Yours is a simplistic view. If only it were that easy. Unfortunately for many their opinions of other religions and races are formulated by experience, hearsay, and poison pens of the media.

    Christianity is actually a more militant religion than Islam, easily seen in the old/new testament opposing views (eye for an eye/turn the other cheek). However the vast majority of Christians are in the 'west', so do not live in the same conditions and the vast majority of Muslims and consequently their views towards religion are not so fervent.

    When things aren't going your way it is easy to look for a value system that professes to give you something to hope for and some dignity. If elements in that system say there is an enemy who is responsible for your problems (a la militant Islamics) then its easy for young impressionable, badly educated people to jump on the bandwagon. And before the PC crowd leap down my throat I'm not just pointing fingers at the middle east now. Look at areas of the US, religious cults and preachers there. If we're taking value systems also look at the rise of Fascism in deprived areas of Europe now, and previously.

    For the record. I'm an atheist.