In your opinion, why do most christians reject islam?

[muhtadiyah]

Salaam Ihsan,

It's an okay article, but marred by these passages:

Take a look at the books written by these authors and you will find in them so many venomous utterances about the other prophets that you will be driven to conclude that, like Jews and Christians, Muslims too have developed the pernicious habit of discriminating against certain prophets.

It is true that this poisonous literature was produced largely in response to the provocation offered by certain foul-spoken non-Muslims, but the blame really rests on Muslims in so far as they returned evil for evil.

But those Muslims who preached Islam or wrote about it probably entertained a Christian view of religion, namely that it is no more than professing a few articles of faith and has no positive bearing on the practical aspects of life.

But our scholastic writers were so deeply influenced by the Greeks that they paid no attention to the Qur’anic method of argumentation, they even criticized and found fault with it.

It was perhaps under the influence of the Christian missionaries that, in preaching, the Muslims always aimed at converting the downtrodden sections of society. This is a completely wrong approach.

The only goal the Christian missionaries had in sight was that of swelling their numbers. And the method they adopted was quite suitable for that purpose. But Muslims do not preach with the sole end of increasing their numbers. Their job is to show mankind the right path, to bring about a wholesale reformation in the life of man.

In preaching, the Muslims also resorted to some of the base methods used by the Christians or A^rya Samajis. They tried to adopt the same techniques with which the Christians tried to convert the world or which the Aryans employed to gain their ends. In debates they exerted to beat their rivals at splitting hairs, heaping abuse, and committing outrages.

Adoption of cheap tactics, like misleading immature children and actually running away with them, was an important plank in the preaching methodology of others, and so it became in the preaching of Islam.

We only wanted to bring out the fact that what today goes by the name of preaching is ... an imitation of the preaching of non-Muslims.

What could have been a fairly mature and admirable ownership of responsibility is rendered nearly impalatable by finger-pointing and shifting the blame, ploys that seem inevitably present in any Muslim discourse that mentions Christians, Jews, the West, or anyone else with whom Islam has shared a conflicted history. While I'm always amazed at the puerility of such tactics, their sheer frequency tells me they must evoke some favorable dynamic in their intended audience. I wonder if it has anything to do with the difference between a 'culture of guilt' and a 'culture of shame'...

In any case, it would be a breath of fresh air if a Muslim spokesman could stand up and say, "We did this, it was wrong. Period." Unfortunately, Mr. Islahi couldn't quite pull it off. If I would believe everything he says here, I would think Muslims a most imitative people, strangely cursed with only being able to copy what is bad.

Shifting blame ("You started it; it's your fault") and finger-pointing ("But you do the same thing") aren't exclusive to Muslims, of course; they are very human traits and can be observed in any tabloid rag or schoolyard around the world. The problem is that they are ultimately self-defeating, cultivating a reactionary mentality of impotent victimhood. Shifting blame is also shifting power. Think about that...

peace,
mhtdyh

[muhtadiyah]

Can't say I've met him, but he sure sounds cuckoo bananas based on his wikipedia page...Have you ever met him?

Unfortunately, I've had the dishonor.

[Algebra]

Unfortunately, I've had the dishonor.

But back on topic, would you not agree that one of the stumbling blocks to accepting islam is the nature of islam itself - a religion that was revolutionary for its time, in that it really attempted to be equitable based on the traditions of the arabs.

However those traditions are barbaric by todays standards.

What got me thinking about this is the marital rape thread - marital rape is simply undefined in islam.

I have little doubt that saffiyah the jewess was raped on her first night with the prophet, but it is not recorded or seen as rape, because rape is simply undefined for islam.

I base this on the testimony of bilal the slave of the prophet who claimed that he stationed himself outside the tent because he was afraid saffiyah would kill the prophet.

[faithful]

Algebra, with my all respect, you base your knowledge to what you hear.. a LOT!

First of all you used the word "Barbaric"... but according to whom, you are talking like every Islamic marriage is full of rape, insult, irrespect to women, and all the falsehood that people hear about muslims, which is not the case. Domestic violence, for exemple, exists in every country and Islam has nothing to do with it.

You said:

I have little doubt that saffiyah the jewess was raped on her first night with the prophet, but it is not recorded or seen as rape, because rape is simply undefined for islam.

What is this Algebra? You really cant state something like that.. This is a dangerous statement!
You are basing your statement on WHAT? And the statement of Bilal doesnt proove anything about a marital rape (Note: I never heard such Hadith)
Plus Bilal wasnt the slave of the prophet (pbuh).

[vinod]

However those traditions are barbaric by todays standards.

The traditions are what the people make it out to be. I don't think Chuck uses the traditions to beat his wife or demand sex and obedience from her nor does he go about divorcing women with three talaqs or contracting temp marriages with gorgeous Iranian college babes or axing the head of apostates. Chuck is Chuck, the abusive muslim is the abusive muslim and the tradition is broad enough for anyone to take the best or the worst out of it. Bad people will take the bad out of it and the good people will take the good out of it. The tradition doesn't do anything to the people themselves in terms of practices. The teachings simply provide emotional comforts to both the good, by providing them a reason to sacrifice more to do good, and the bad people, by providing them a reason to justify their wrong behaviour. The people themselves become good or bad based on the influences from others around them. There are Imams who have found the inspiration for homosexual rights activism within Islamic traditions and not from western traditions. What traditions do to influence people is to provide a platform, by appeal to a mystical connection with God, for people to gather togerther. That is all. After that, it is upto the dynamics of the group and individual to pick the best (or worst) out of the tradition and go forth.

I fully believe that even if in the next instant all muslims become atheists or Christians they will find a reason within those particular traditions to continue beating their wives or honor killing them or demand sexual obedience from them.

All traditions that have lived through the centuries have both barbaric and civilizing strains of thought within them. Islamic tradition is no different.

I will grant you one thing though - the islamic tradition can be blamed for not generating enough mobilization within the muslim community against the negative practices. I believe that some blame must be placed on the doorstep of orthodoxy for this. Orthodoxy has been plagued by the suspicion of the west and has failed to speak strongly enough against its weakening inner movements.

Regards

[muhtadiyah]

Algebra, I recommend this panel conversation for a historical perspective on western freedoms and democracy.

It was a good discussion, but how did you relate it to western freedom and democracy? It seemed like it had more to do with gender bias in scientific methodology and philosophy...

[vinod]

There were passing mentions of the gender bias in early democracies. Gender bias itself covered a lot about the freedoms of women. It's not too difficult to see that if the freedoms of women within the scientific and philosophical fields were so strong, how much more it would have been in the common society.

[Sadiq_b]

What got me thinking about this is the marital rape thread - marital rape is simply undefined in islam.

I have little doubt that saffiyah the jewess was raped on her first night with the prophet, but it is not recorded or seen as rape, because rape is simply undefined for islam.

I base this on the testimony of bilal the slave of the prophet who claimed that he stationed himself outside the tent because he was afraid saffiyah would kill the prophet.

Salaam Algebra, can you please quote your source on this.

Peace

[ihsan]

Salaam Ihsan,

It's an okay article, but marred by these passages:What could have been a fairly mature and admirable ownership of responsibility is rendered nearly impalatable by finger-pointing and shifting the blame, ploys that seem inevitably present in any Muslim discourse that mentions Christians, Jews, the West, or anyone else with whom Islam has shared a conflicted history. While I'm always amazed at the puerility of such tactics, their sheer frequency tells me they must evoke some favorable dynamic in their intended audience. I wonder if it has anything to do with the difference between a 'culture of guilt' and a 'culture of shame'...

In any case, it would be a breath of fresh air if a Muslim spokesman could stand up and say, "We did this, it was wrong. Period." Unfortunately, Mr. Islahi couldn't quite pull it off. If I would believe everything he says here, I would think Muslims a most imitative people, strangely cursed with only being able to copy what is bad.

Shifting blame ("You started it; it's your fault") and finger-pointing ("But you do the same thing") aren't exclusive to Muslims, of course; they are very human traits and can be observed in any tabloid rag or schoolyard around the world. The problem is that they are ultimately self-defeating, cultivating a reactionary mentality of impotent victimhood. Shifting blame is also shifting power. Think about that...

peace,
mhtdyh

Wa salaam,

Islahi never absolved the Muslims of blame, did he? He acknowledges that they used the same tactics as the Jews and Christian and his work is directed to Muslims, to change their attitude. Further, I was speaking about the sub-continent, where the Muslims were responding to the British colonialists. Take your passage:

However, I generally don't see Christians using the Qur'an as a foil for the Bible - quite the opposite. Most Christians don't read the Qur'an and aren't interested. Muslims are generally the ones who incite these comparisons, and the way it's usually done it reeks of insecurity. Islam comes off looking like the pimply new kid on the Abrahamic block who has something to prove.

'course, that's just how I see things.

You state that Muslims are generally the ones who incite the comparisons, when this simply isn't true. That wasn't how it was in the sub-continent especially. Works like Izharul-Haqq and even the activities of the like of Mirza Ghulam, the founder of the Qadianis, were aimed at responses to Christian propaganda. There are Christian prolestyizing groups that are borrowing Muslim symbols to propagate their faith, as a means to exploit the illiterate masses.

What you have accused Muslims of doing, you have just done yourself.

[Algebra]

Salaam Algebra, can you please quote your source on this.

Peace

Bukhari:V4B52N143
V5B59N523 "When we reached Khaybar, Muhammad said that Allah had enabled him to conquer them. It was then that the beauty of Safiyah was described to him. Her husband had been killed [by Muhammad], so Allah's Apostle selected her for himself. He took her along with him till we reached a place where her menses were over and he took her for his wife, consummating his marriage to her, and forcing her to wear the veil.'"

Ishaq:517 "When the Apostle took Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, 'I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people."

[Algebra]

You state that Muslims are generally the ones who incite the comparisons, when this simply isn't true.

I think its true that christians are the most vociferous about proselytising.

However, I dont think most christians would bother with comparing the Quran to the Bible.

To them the Quran is no different than the Vedas or the Sutras. i.e. blatantly false.

However muslims necessarily have to make the comparison, because the validity of the Quran is based on the validity of the Bible.

If we are to objectively prove that Abraham did not exist, right away the Quran is also invalidated.

However the converse is not true, if we could show that Mohammed did not exist, the Bible could still be true.

So you see muslims are motivated to make the comparison, christians are not.

But I agree with you in that Christians are more vocal about converting people, especially converting jews.

[ihsan]

Bukhari:V4B52N143
V5B59N523 "When we reached Khaybar, Muhammad said that Allah had enabled him to conquer them. It was then that the beauty of Safiyah was described to him. Her husband had been killed [by Muhammad], so Allah's Apostle selected her for himself. He took her along with him till we reached a place where her menses were over and he took her for his wife, consummating his marriage to her, and forcing her to wear the veil.'"

Ishaq:517 "When the Apostle took Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, 'I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people."

Actually, I believe the narration attributed to Bukhari at the beginning is incorrectly translated. The whole narration is translated below.

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil.

This statement by Anas is meant to demonstrate that she became a wife of the Prophet (S) and did not remain 'one whom the right hand possessed'. This is further confirmed in the next narration, as well as the others. Only the wives of the Prophet (S) were ordered to veil themselves.

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to h s marriage banquet and there wa neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, "Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses" Some of them said, "If the Prophet makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet's wives), and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave." So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and made her observe the veil.

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'.

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet took Safiya as a captive. He manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "What did he give her as Mahr (i.e. marriage gift)?" Anas replied. "Her Mahr was herself, for he manumitted her."

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Apostle married her. Hais (i.e. an 'Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet said to me, "I invite the people around you." So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel).

This shows the exemplary attitude of the Propjet (S), where he (S) made a cushion for our Mother, then he knelt down and kneeled to allow her to step on it and ascend to the camel. All these narrations are actually meant to demonstrate the fact that the Prophet (S) treated Safiyya (R) honorably and actually freed her and did nika with her.

As far as Abu Ayyub, per ibn Ishaq, this only shows that some of his Companions were worried, considering what just happened at Khaybar. COnsidering her family was killed in the battle, it was only logical that Safiyya may have had double-intents through the marriage.

[Ratatosk]

[...] finger-pointing ("But you do the same thing") [...]

What you have accused Muslims of doing, you have just done yourself.

I felt compelled to highlight this exchange.

Carry on.

[muhtadiyah]

Thanks for, er, pointing that out, Ihsan. I'm not really sure I can be shifting blame or finger-pointing, though, since I don't think I was being accused of anything to begin with...was I?

I'll try to respond to the rest later; I gotta go to work.

[Sadiq_b]

Bukhari:V4B52N143
V5B59N523 "When we reached Khaybar, Muhammad said that Allah had enabled him to conquer them. It was then that the beauty of Safiyah was described to him. Her husband had been killed [by Muhammad], so Allah's Apostle selected her for himself. He took her along with him till we reached a place where her menses were over and he took her for his wife, consummating his marriage to her, and forcing her to wear the veil.'"

Ishaq:517 "When the Apostle took Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, 'I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people."

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to h s marriage banquet and there wa neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, "Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses" Some of them said, "If the Prophet makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet's wives), and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave." So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and made her observe the veil.

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Apostle married her. Hais (i.e. an 'Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet said to me, "I invite the people around you." So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel).

The above shows how the same incident may be shown in different light by the manner of narration. One has to make a judgement based on an overall picture. I find it amusing when non-muslims accept the Prophet as an enlightened man who was exceptionally benevolent and kind (proved through history) and also believe the accusations where he is portrayed as a murderer or as in this case one guilty of marital rape. One has to be practical and realize that a person cannot be simultaneously benevolent and kind and just and also be cruel and unsympathetic and unjust.