Step into any Roman Catholic church and the images on the walls take you straight to Jerusalem. These are the Stations of the Cross, a series of 14 pictures that depict the journey of Jesus Christ to his death, and are usually meditated on during Lent by people walking round the church, pausing for prayer before each picture. Bethlehem was the birthplace of Jesus, Nazareth where he grew up, but Jerusalem is the city that really matters to Christians.
This was where Christ preached, ate the Last Supper with his disciples before his death, where he was arrested, put on trial, condemned to death, crucified, and died, a man mocked and tortured by the occupying Romans. It is where, Christians believe, his tomb was found empty and he rose from the dead. Jerusalem, then, is a place of deep sorrow, utter desolation but also of hope and redemption. It is the sacred heart of the Christian story. Jerusalem has been a major focus of pilgrimage ever since the Roman emperor Constantine converted to the new religion of Christianity.
But with the desire for pilgrimage has come issues of authority, power and ownership. Battles over Jerusalem not only pitched Christians against Muslims but the city has caused divisions between different strands of Christianity with control of the Holy Places swinging back and forth between the eastern and western branches of Christianity. Occasionally, brawls break out over territory.
Jerusalem, though, is more than just an historic place for Christians: it is also a metaphor for all that they yearn for in this world and the next. It is a perfect place, a golden city, a paradise they will one day attain after death. Actually, the very reverse is the case. Judaism has never condoned nor endorsed child sacrifice, or human sacrifice of any nature. If maniacal antisemites say it does, they obviously do so out of blind hatred, in open disregard of the truth, and what we find out about pagan Canaanite and Phoenician practices will not influence them one way or another — rather, these researches tend strongly to confirm the Tanakh account and thereby strengthen its testimony.
And it is obvious, and always has been, that the Akeda, a founding narrative of Torah Judaism, is an explicit repudiation of such acts, once and for all. Unfortunately, Tzur, your assumptions are incorrect. Our most trusted institutions have aggressively marketed this slander since WWII, and there has been no protest from the Jewish community. Regarding the Moscati timeline, he explains in his article that both he and Sergio Ribichini independently had come to the conclusion by that child-sacrifice did not occur, but he also says that this was overlooked in important works published between and So, I am not really sure to what extent his new position was reflected in The Phoenicians.
As an academic myself retired , I have never encountered such things. So please do clarify this. Yes, of course, I can validate these charges. My work is thoroughly documented. What was your academic field, Tzur, and where did you teach? It is not about my CV. Please do present your evidence so we can make a proper assessment of it.
Tzur, you are very condescending and arrogant. Come on, Pam, the issue is not my CV. That is actually irrelevant to this matter, and no one needs a higher degree to evaluate such things anyway. If I sound condescending and arrogant to you, then I am quite happy to apologize to you; I do not mean to be.
Please share with all of us the basis for your very strong assertions concerning leading universities and church bodies. Actually, Tzur, you just provide more proof of your arrogance by requesting that I fit my material into a few comments. In any case, if you insist on remaining incognito, I will have to end this conversation. So you avoid verifying your claims at all, even with a few telling examples that would take up just a few lines? And again you justify this by personal abuse.
It is not an academically persuasive argument, and tends to weaken your entire case. Well, turning to the other big contemporary issue raised by you in explaining the importance of disproving the existence of ritual child sacrifice amongst the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians, and that was to counter antisemitic charges. As I pointed out above, this would imply that the Biblical account actually falsified and very seriously slandered gentile religions around ancient Israel, thus increasing antisemitism, not reducing it, and even by implication justifying the same slanders as payback against the Jews in later Christianity and now, Islam.
You must have a persuasive answer to negate or refute such consequences of your argument, seeing that you do take antisemitism so seriously, so could you share that with us, at least? Why would the Hebrew prophets inveigh against passing children through the fire for Moloch if it never happened? No one denies that the reports of child sacrifice in the Mediterranean were propaganda. Specifically, these reports were by Greeks and Romans defaming their arch-rivals and enemies, the Carthaginians. The authors who indulged in this were not the great historians but the hacks like Diodorus Siculus, well known for embellishing and inventing salacious elements in order to increase the sales of his books.
Furthermore, as several scholars have pointed out, the references to Carthaginian child-sacrifice are not independent of one another. They appear to have been copied by one author from another, generation after generation. This speaks volumes. It says that the study is not a dispassionate search for the truth but an argument leading to a predetermined conclusion. In other words, propaganda.
Archeologists did find so-called evidence in the Mediterranean although no physical evidence of any kind was found on the mainland of Israel, Canaan, Phoenicia, Arabia, Syria etc. The Carthaginian infant bones were originally discovered in the s, but not only were several excavation attempts foiled by bizarre accidents and tragedies, but the retrieval and study of cremated infant bones was itself in its infancy. Developing the science took decades. He leapt to the conclusion that these infants had been sacrificed.
He did not even waver in this opinion when it was found that most of the infants had been pre-natal, aborted fetuses or miscarriages, stillborn or less that 8 days old. In other words, they could not have been sacrificed because they were already dead. Abraham initially may have thought that the Lamb was Isaac….
This is the faith of Paul spoken so clearly by Isaiah in chapter 53 and it must be the faith of those who believe God our Father…our Provider…. Finally, Islam is a mendacious exercise, similar to the religions of Moloch and Baal…where men takes upon himself to pay with his own means what God expressly notes cannot be paid with our own resources…hence human sacrifice, child sacrifice…etc.
The Aztecs practiced the same…and I sense this to be a common denominator among many cults because they corrupted the original message that God would provide His sacrifice so that men came to believe that they could provide their own sacrifices… children, slaves.. What of the Jewish people? Have you ever passed your hand through a candle, walked on hot coals, or jumped over a bonfire? As I mentioned before, passing the child through a fire was something that many ancient and medieval cultures did, because it was thought to make a child hardy, ward off infections, or ward off supernatural predators like child-stealing fairies.
And of course the Greeks and Romans had many stories about passing the child through the fire — Achilles being the most famous. There are any number of reasons why a non-lethal pagan ritual might have been condemned by the prophets — beginning with the fact that children were being dedicated to a pagan god. You may not be aware of this but there was only one Talmudic rabbi who believed that the children were killed, and that was during the Inquisition.
The more common explanation was that the child was carried in the arms of the parents between two rows of torches and blessed by an idol. The closest the Bible comes to condemning Canaanites for child-sacrifice specifically are a few statements in Jeremiah, and the idea that Jeremiah could have been exaggerating for dramatic or polemical effect is nothing new. Nothing could make Jew-hatred any more extreme than it already is in Islam, and Christians do not equate gentiles and pagans. No one really cares if the Canaanites or Carthaginians did this dastardly deed!
Proving they did is an obsession only because it makes it more plausible that the Jews did it too. I have responded to the supposedly unclear statements in the Tanakh in my earlier responses above, quoting in my most recent post from the Jewish JPS translation Jer. These texts are borne out by the Canaanitic attitudes displayed in the Moabite Stone in no uncertain terms. Isaiah is another Biblical text that actually describes Tophet, and again it makes it clear that it is a place of killing and death.
Perhaps I should have cited it before. So here the Jewish Publication Society has affirmed the very thing that you claim the RSV Christian translation innovates and wrongly states for antisemitic reasons. The association of the tophet with death was a Biblical association, and indeed I am surprised that a Talmudic rabbi even lived during the Inquisition, which occurred some years later, but also by the claim that child sacrifice was not linked in Rabbinic exegesis with the tophet until that 13th century CE at the earliest.
I confess to some scepticism about that, but have not the time to research it. I think Pam is trying to distinguish Rabbinic scholar from a Karaite scholar. Both Jewish communities existed in Spain and both often called their scholars hakhamim. This changed in Moreover, this change was unremarked. It was made without footnote or explanation and, as such, ordinary Christians might assume that it had always read that way. And there was no outcry from the Jewish community! Even though the RSV was hotly criticized by traditional Christians for other reasons, no one complained about this particular change.
Yes, now millions of Christians were being taught that the ancient Israelites not only sacrificed their children, but burned them alive! And you wonder, could this be anti-Semitic? I do not wonder whether that could be antisemitic, Pam. It is obviously not. Those that did child sacrifice were explicitly stated in the text itself to be following Canaanite practices, not Jewish ones, worshipping the Canaanite god Molech, not HaShem, and they were condemned in the text and by the mainstream Jewish community that preserved the text of Jeremiah, Isaiah, II Kings and the Torah, and by God himself who is quoted as rejecting it as never commanded by him.
Canaanite religious practices died out two thousand years ago or more. Nobody follows it since. And it was presented in the Tanakh itself as the antithesis of Judaism. So this hardly amounts to an inditement of Judaism, but rather affirms the blamelessness of those Jews who follow Judaism. It is therefore not antisemitic nor anti-Judaic to translate the passage as the RSV does, and as Jewish exegesis does too, anymore than it would be anti-Christian per se to point out Church denunciations of all sorts of cruel or idolatrous practices by Christians from the time of the early Church to the present.
I can see something of your point, and might agree that the Christian translations could reasonably stay with the actual words of the text rather than extrapolate something not there. Still, the Jeremiah passage is pretty clear that the Tophet, a mortuary site by definition and usage everywhere we can find them e. They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal — which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came to My mind. Is that also antisemitic? Only if the tophet is not a mortuary site would your argument hold, in any case, but it is known precisely as a place of burial: Jer.
Those that did child sacrifice were explicitly stated in the text itself to be following Canaanite practices, not Jewish ones, worshipping the Canaanite god Molech, not HaShem, and they were condemned in the text and by the mainstream Jewish community that preserved the text of II Kings and the Torah, and by God himself who is quoted as rejecting it as never commanded by him.
The current state of this study is precisely that! They ARE saying that child-sacrifice was not only legal from the inception of the religion but a requirement! And that the Jews sacrificed their children not to a god named Molech but to HaShem. And that concludes my little lesson, which you certainly did not deserve.
I hope other readers on Tablet will read our exchange and come to a firm decision to never engage in a conversation with you, which is a draining, masochistic exercise in futility. So far, no evidence of this whatsoever has been presented. Not even a smidgeon. Such arrogance! After 40 years in academe I fear I find your personalised attacks on Tzur offensive proof that what you insist is extensive knowledge exists entirely inside your own head.
Did you read through the entire exchange? If so, and you still feel that Tzur deserves your defense, you must be his girlfriend! And I doubt you really spent 40 years in academia! Tell that to your partner in crime! In addition, it has also been sent to at least fifteen faculty members at Brandeis University who are in some way or another related to Jewish Studies or Education.
Judaism passes thru the mother merely because the rabbis say so; not because of what is written in the Torah! The Torah clearly says it is permissible to marry Canaanite virgins. How could God have told Moses, orally, that Judaism passes thru the mother and then made a written law which says it is okay to marry Canaanite virgins?
Do you think it is possible the rabbis are lying? Karaites at least have a story straight. Um no……. The Torah is very clear that it is matrilineal. Jacob married Rachel and Leah while Esau married the local women that Isaac and Rebekah were against. There is no Jewish heritage for Esau only Jacob. Rebekah was found outside the local Canaanite population.
A Kohen is forbidden to marry a convert. Tribe and clan do come from the fathers side but so what. It is for status within the Jewish people only. Membership within the Jewish people is matrilinearly determined and always was. Right from the beginning since Judaism was handed down to Isaac through Sarah. Not Ishmael though the father was Abraham the mother was Hagar. Um no…. The torah says absolutely nothing about matrilinial or patrilinial decent.
Judah, who most of us are descended from, was no different. Moses married a Midianite, yet his two sons were undoubtedly Jews. There is also no Jewish heritage for Esau because he is not descended from the 12 tribes seeing as he was their uncle , nor did his descendants go to Egypt or receive the covenant on Mt. It has nothing to do with who he married. It was not until the 2nd century AD when the Talmud was written that Judaism was deemed to pass through the mom.
Of course, this whole point is basically moot. Before then, we were simply monotheistic Israelites. You are missing the basic message. An acceptable mother is what determines a Jew no matter how great the father. You certainly can not argue the reverse since it is clear that patrilinear is not final no matter how great the father. Esau gave up his heritage and his choice of women was a clear part. Yes Sinai gave the laws but the patriarchs are the first Jews and the example they set is relevant.
How a child is reared is of vital importance, hence the mother as the denominator of ultimately who is a Jew. And by the way the Talmud is a written preservation of what was an oral law already in effect. If matrilinear descent is there it was there beforehand. Eze Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the LORD: unto us is this land given in possession. You are only partially correct! However, Moses two sons are undoubtedly, levites and Israelites not Jews!
There is also no Jewish heritage for Esau because he is not descended from Judah or Benjamin! There is no Israelite heritage from Esau because he is not descended from the 12 tribes. Judaism develops after the Davidic kingdom splits in Northern and Southern kingdom and Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism develops during the Babylonian captivity. It mentions Israelites! The jews are only mentioned as a separate people from Israel once the Davidic kingdom split into north and south. Please refer to the book of 2 Kings Pharisaic Judaism was born in the Babylonian exile.
I will tell you why not. Because nobody knows why we say your Jewishness is inherited from your mother. Accepting that fact is the first step towards unraveling this mystery. I will give you one clue to get you started. Leah was not really the mother of Dinah, it was Rachel. Then her half-brothers massacred an entire town to prevent the men from talking about the secret. The halachic law on Jewish lineage dates from the time of Dinah, although the hows and whys have been completely forgotten. Martin Luther had issues with Jewish profiteering, usury, and double-dealing.
His anger was based not primarily on religious disagreements but on his probably legitimate perception of the damage that Jewish business practices were doing. The antisemitism sharpened and became more blatant and unguarded when the failure of these hopes was dashed. The religious motivation was primary from the start. He hated the Jews above all for what they did not do, namely they refused to grant his anti-Judaic interpretations of Scripture any validity, and did not convert to his own Lutheranism, which would have been a triumphant testimony to the superiority of his own sect over Catholicism and an evidence of the near advent of the messianic age, as the Apostle Paul had promised.
When the hoped-for conversions never came, he inflated all possible criticisms he could find to make, exaggerating their evil, inventing further libels, and demonizing the Jews themselves. In his On the Jews and Their Lies, written in his later years, he strongly recommended to the princes who ruled Lutheran states that they destroy not only all Jewish synagogues and schools but also all Jewish homes, confiscate all Jewish property and move the Jews themselves into communal barns or barracks in Jewish ghettos.
They should be forced into hard labour, and forbidden any practice or even teaching of the Jewish religion. Their rabbis must be muzzled or killed. If this did not result in producing the conversions he demanded, he recommended expulsion or even mass murder. The full text of this work is available on the internet, and continues to be a chief resource for antisemites. Fortunately, since World War II but not before , the Lutheran Church leaders have formally repudiated this work and dissented from it.
Eichmann did seek instruction in Judaica but could not find a rabbi to give it to him, and was nevertheless regarded by his SS fellows as a chief Judaica authority: it was precisely on this basis that he became head of the SS division responsible for implementing the Final Solution. He of course pored over the antisemitic distortions and lies about the Jewish religion and literature that had accumulated in the German language since the Middle Ages.
Therefore, I am sorry to say, Goldman is entirely justified in his comments on these matters. David Cesarani wrote the most recent biography on Eichmann. His discussion of Eichmann as an expert on Judaica can be found on p. Again Affleck proves himself totally unreliable.
It is simply mythography to claim that Eichmann was was an expert in Judaica or Jewish studies or aspired to be such even if he may have benefited from the reputation of expertise. No one should refrain from condemnation of Jewish Zionist villainy or from contempt for ridiculous Jewish pseudo-scholarship because criticism of Jews in the past was unfounded. In reality, a lot if not most or even the vast majority of criticism of Jews in the past was completely legitimate. Actually, that is far from what Lindemann claims in his book.
He does however point to culture-clash issues arising out of the differences in Jewish and non-Jewish cultures, issues that arise as we know from all cross-culture contacts. The tendency however to demonize Jewish difference came out of the gentile antisemitic heritage, and did not relate to Jewish traits.
So I think your account of Lindemann like your account of other matters is blinded by hate. I feel for your poor wife. However warped her previous understanding, she will never learn the truth about her own ancestors and heritage or be guided to a more wholesome and self-affirmative identity with you as a partner. It is you, Mr. The p. It identifies as the turning point and places the anti-Semitic writings and agitation only in the last 10 years of his life. My wife, who researched Jewish propaganda at Hebrew University points out that the very last complaint that Luther made against Jews focused on usury.
It was probably convenient to focus popular anger against Jewish usury and profiteering, but in point of fact Jewish usury, profiteering and exploitation were certainly real, and by the s the rulers were feeling the effects as the peasantry and lower bourgeoisie had 10 years earlier. Those were times when political economic grievances were expressed in religious terms, but once one discerns what the religious complaints are really saying, one cannot help but realize that the vituperation against Jews in the 16th century was at least as legitimate as it was in the 19th century or more recently on account of the theft of Palestine from the native population by racist murderous genocidal invading Jewish Zionists.
Jonathan Affleck is not a reliable source regarding the references he cites for his case; they actually testify against him, and he falsifies their content. Tzur, you are correct in noting that Luther was, from the beginning, quite an antisemite…This, I believe, was a consequence of his Roman Catholicism. Luther served His purpose though, by removing the strangle-hold of Roman Catholicism on Europe during that time.
Alternatively, I will have to do some research on people like Zwingli a contemporary of Luther and even Cromwell to see how they perceived Jewish people…. The Hebraic tradition was deeply respected, even if Jews as such were often still negatively viewed due to the societal weight of antisemitism, and for their refusal to become Christian and persistence in difference.
Puritans could be much more welcoming to Jews than some other Christian groups, and Cromwell as is well-known sought unsuccessfully for formal admission of Jews into England he nevertheless facilitated their unofficial admission. Just as antisemitism has been a deep wound and hindrance within Western Christianity itself, a more positive view of the Jews and Judaism has opened up very positive new possibilities within Western culture.
Catholics I know are not anti-semites. Luther although, given his lack of civility, may well have been. I want to swich the topic somewhat in the direction of Christianity. It is absolutely false to argue that Abraham is the Patriarch of the Israelites. Because faith itself is a gift from God, Abraham did really nothing on his own. All was given to him by the Omnipotent God! Somehow, in a mysterious way, Abraham had sensed and concluded, that this One God was there for him as a Protecting and Loving Force!
Only such person, then and now, is able to believe to the end. As a Christian, I am a great admirer of Abraham! Luke I love how apologists for racists, antisemites, and those who advocate d for ethnic cleansing or genocide always seek to rationalize their crimes against humanity based on the very canards employed by the racists, antisemites, and genocidal maniacs they defend. Affleck, you are a contemptible, Jew-hating piece of garbage.
It makes three minor references to Sabbatarians, two of which direct the reader to his earlier writing on Sabbatarians. The third is associated with a discussion of the correct meaning of le-olam. Bohemia and Moravia have a complex Sabbatarian history that is as much connected with politics and economics as it is with religious doctrine. Maybe because you are an apologist for Jewish Zionist barbarism and fling ridiculous accusations against over 1. A while back my wife Oksana had me read some crap from Max Nordau.
He is one of the most important primary Zionist ideologists. The practices described by the LA Times constitute a key element of the core eugenics ideals that Max Nordau made intrinsic to Zionism. We see it generally on the internet. Any reference to Jewish matters draws them out.
For the true antisemite, Jewish hate just cannot be dropped, it becomes the center of their life, the fulcrum of their being, the true expression of their character. It appeals to the paranoid psychotic, above all. It becomes a true mania. And it is a mental as well as a moral and spiritual sickness, I am convinced.
My former Russian Israeli ex-Jewish wife would be surprised to learn that I am anti-Semite although I have to admit that some of her opinions of Jews make me uncomfortable. I just have to concede that because she grew up in the Soviet Union, became a Zionist, emigrated to Israel, became an anti-Zionist, could no longer tolerate living in the perverted Zionist state, and emigrated to the USA, she has immense life experience that I cannot fully ken.
The five main Pillars of Islam include; an affirmation of faith there is no g-d but Allan , prayer, alms giving, fasting, and hajj. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, Sacrifice as a noun refers to an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to G-d or to a divine or supernatural figure.
Nice try though. Regardless, it seems that Muslims, or those claiming to be adherents of Islam, are just as often the victims of terrorism as they are the perpetrators of it but, then again, I suppose in this age, all Muslims are victims of terrorism when it is portrayed as central to their nature, or belief, although they feel it is contrary to their set of beliefs. Yes, there have been numerous perpetrated under the name of Islam, but terrorisms itself belongs to no one group of people or ideology as both the secular and the devoutly religious have used it for their own purposes.
Of course our readers will know that something must be out of kilter with these assertions. So I linked through to the actual FBI report. And I found that, 1, it does not break up terrorist acts in terms of the religious affiliation of their perpetrators, and does not specify the nature of the motivations of any group. The Jewish Defense League, responsible for all but one of the evidently Jewish acts of terror, is motivated by a desire, explicitly expressed, to fight against antisemitism and specific antisemites on behalf of the Jewish people; it is ethnically justified, not religiously.
So the assertion about them in the Craig-linked article is incorrect. They were just property damage. But, 3, in fact the two worst acts of terror properly so-called in any definition against the U. No other terrorist acts came remotely close. In fact, all of the rest even including other lesser Muslim terrorist acts amounted to killed and injured, of which the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Clark in March accounted for dead and injured. Otherwise next to no people were injured or killed in terrorist acts in the U. And, another big difference with other terrorist acts including the Jewish ones is that the intended victims of the Muslim terrorist acts were the entire American people as such.
Graig is falsifying the entire historical reality of Islamic terrorism, which as we all know is a terrible affliction in the majority of countries in the world, from the Philippines westward across Eurasia and Africa to the US, involving massive deaths not remotely paralleled by any other group. But, if you want to go that route, we could say that any pogrom against jews is ethnically justified by those who orchestrated it, or at least it seems to have been that way historically.
And indeed, the articles at the bottom of my original post says that Americans have a greater chance being killed by their TV falling on them then by a terrorists incident.
- ANSWERING ATTACKS FROM ISLAM.
- Criticism of Islam!
- New America;
- Welcome to the New IslamiCity!
- Supernatural Freak.
- Center for the Study of Political Islam?
Which has been my point all along. Terrorism, in the USA, seems to be very much overblown, and we seem to be giving it far more attention than it deserves. Boy, you really reveal yourself, Craig. Your comments are monstrous and openly and merely propagandistic. So it is a very misleading statistic and is largely meaningless. There has been in short a refusal by Muslims to take responsibility for these atrocities, do some soul-searching, and repent for them, and no mainstream attempt to reexamine the roots of such violence in Islamic teachings themselves and to eliminate them, in the Muslim world generally.
These are very serious matters, and very ominous for the future peace of the world. Your own posts provide further instances of these attitudes and are not at all reassuring.
Cookies on the BBC website
Now, who is falsifying things? The issue with the breakdown of the types of terrorism events was addressed in an second update at the bottom of the article or maybe a better word choice would have been After the article. As you well know, opinions and opinion polls can be manipulated as well as statistics. What would happen if you excluded September 11, from your data? Would your statement still be true? How much of a difference would that make? How many muslim women and children have died in the U. And how many children have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan, or Yemen?
Are these numbers equal to your or our own suffering? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Muslim wrong a Jew what is his humility? If a Jew wrong a Muslim, what should his sufferance be by Jewish example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
And, I lament only too typically for a Muslim I mentioned above the tendency among too many Muslims never to take responsibility for their own faults and seek to correct them , your response attempts to blame the victims for the evil perpetrated against them, with truly outrageous and lying attempts to justify terrorism against Jews.
The low casualties are a tremendous testimony to the unequalled moral restraint accepted as a matter of course by the IDF. I am really proud of it. Arab armies have exactly nothing to compare with it, and do not really even try: they make a point of warring against entire civilian populations, even if it is their own people, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and nowadays notably Syria.
For example, Col. Retired Major General Jim Molan, American Chief of Operations of Allied forces in the Iraq war during , and who monitored the Gaza conflict closely, strongly agreed in public addresses and articles after the Gaza conflict. Rather than add other testimonies by experts familiar with these conflicts, let me turn to the Muslim record. About 90 percent of the 11 million, on the other hand, were killed by other Muslims. Wait, you think I am Muslim? Hah, that is rich. Your willful ignorance is astounding.
But speaking of fallacious arguments, within the course of our discussion you have questioned my motives, asserted that I must have some kind of Islamists or Anti-Jewish agenda, accused me of being a liar, or somehow falsifying or manipulating one of my sources and then you created a straw man by ignoring my arguments and then attacking a conclusion of one of my sources but even those assertions were shown to be misleading. After that, you attacked the very nature of statistics, by using a thought-terminating cliche while relentlessly reaffirming one statistic and denying any context of which it should be placed in.
However, one can not necessarily conclude that because there were deaths in a country that has a majority muslim population that those deaths were a muslims, or B caused by other muslims. Also, it seems that gathering a huge sample size simply for the purpose of making the deaths of particular group seem insignificant is fairly dubious scholarship.
Total Casualties, , Jewish Virtual Library. Comparative Deaths between , Procon. Terrorists Caused Death vs. Anti- Terrorism Spending 50, times greater than any other cause of death. Red herring after red herring. Why not include some pasta recipes? At least there would be some benefit from it, and it goes with red herrings. Nonetheless, one could plausibly infer from some of my sources about Israel and Palestine that a primarily non-muslim entity enacted violence, or terror on muslim and christian populations.
Additionally, I have provided support for my claim that the focus on terrorism as a matter of policy is disproportional to its rate of occurrence. Thus, why it is true that your argument have been successful in diverting us from the main point at hand, they have not, as of yet, established the falsehood, or refutation, of my claims. I did read the article, but apparently not very closely.
Your article citation is, for a change, of some real value. However, it does not change what I wrote. Today, they are 2. So that means that the Christian population in Israel is the only one that has actually grown in percentage since in the entire Middle East. All other states report a drastic, major decline. In a few states, there are practically no Christians left at all. I am not sure if we can conclude that Israel Policy has no effect on Palestinian Christians decisions to emigrate simply because the rate emmigration of their Muslim neighbors differs from their own.
Either population could likely have their own reasons for staying or for leaving. But, I know that this can be a contentious issue, which was most recently brought to the forefront by the CBS 60 Minutes special on Palestinian Christians and with subsequent response from Israel and the Israel Ambassador to the US. Revenge or acts of violence against those around them has not been in any shape or form characteristic of Jews in the past two thousand years.
There have been no suicide bombings, no terrorist attacks against Christian populations in Christian countries or Muslim populations in Muslim countries, over all that time. James Fitzjames Stephen , describing what he understood to be the Islamic conception of the ideal society, wrote the following:. Not only are the varieties of morality innumerable, but some of them are conflicting with each other.
If a Mahommedan, for instance, is fully to realize his ideal, to carry out into actual fact his experiment of living, he must be one of a ruling race which has trodden the enemies of Islam under their feet, and has forced them to choose between the tribute and the sword. He must be able to put in force the law of the Koran both as to the faithful and as to unbelievers. In short, he must conquer. Englishmen come into a country where Mahommedans had more or less realized their ideal, and proceed to govern it with the most unfeigned belief in the order of ideas of which liberty is the motto.
The early 20th-century missionary James L. Barton argued that Islam's view of the sovereignty of God is so extreme and unbalanced as to produce a fatalism that stifles human initiative: . Man is reduced to a cipher. Human agency and human freedom are nullified. Right is no longer right because it is right, but because Allah wills it to be right. It is for this reason that monotheism has in Islam stifled human effort and progress. It has become a deadening doctrine of fate. Man must believe and pray, but these do not insure salvation or any benefit except Allah wills it.
Why should human effort strive by sanitary means to prevent disease, when death or life depends in no way on such measures but upon the will of Allah? One reason why Moslem countries are so stagnant and backward in all that goes to make up a high civilization is owing to the deadening effects of monotheism thus interpreted. Chesterton criticized Islam as a derivative from Christianity. He described it as a heresy or parody of Christianity.
A Taste of Islam Series
In The Everlasting Man he says:. Islam was a product of Christianity; even if it was a by-product; even if it was a bad product. It was a heresy or parody emulating and therefore imitating the Church Islam, historically speaking, is the greatest of the Eastern heresies. It owed something to the quite isolated and unique individuality of Israel; but it owed more to Byzantium and the theological enthusiasm of Christendom.
It owed something even to the Crusades. Winston Churchill criticized what he alleged to be the effects Islam had on its believers, which he described as fanatical frenzy combined with fatalistic apathy, enslavement of women, and militant proselytizing. How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
- Devils Details: Z Is For Zombie Book 4.
- On this page.
- Why is Jerusalem important? You asked Google – here’s the answer.
- Anti-Muslim Activities in the United States.
The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
According to historian Warren Dockter , Churchill wrote this during a time of a fundamentalist revolt in Sudan and this statement does not reflect his full view of Islam, which were "often paradoxical and complex. According to Dockter, this was largely for his "lust for glory". Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. As the English translation of the Pope's lecture was disseminated across the world, many Muslim politicians and religious leaders protested against what they saw as an insulting mischaracterization of Islam.
The Hindu philosopher Vivekananda commented on Islam:. Now, some Mohammedans are the crudest in this respect, and the most sectarian. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, for five hundred years blood ran all over the world. That is Mohammedanism. Nevertheless, among these Mohammedans, wherever there has a philosophic man, he was sure to protest against these cruelties. In that he showed the touch of the Divine and realised a fragment of the truth; he was not playing with his religion; for it was not his father's religion he was talking, but spoke the truth direct like a man.
The more selfish a man, the more immoral he is. And so also with the race. That race which is bound down to itself has been the most cruel and the most wicked in the whole world. There has not been a religion that has clung to this dualism more than that founded by the Prophet of Arabia, and there has not been a religion, which has shed so much blood and been so cruel to other men. In the Koran there is the doctrine that a man who does not believe these teachings should be killed, it is a mercy to kill him! And the surest way to get to heaven, where there are beautiful houris and all sorts of sense enjoyments, is by killing these unbelievers.
Think of the bloodshed there has been in consequence of such beliefs! Why religions should claim that they are not bound to abide by the standpoint of reason, no one knows. If one does not take the standard of reason, there cannot be any true judgment, even in the case of religions. One religion may ordain something very hideous. For instance, the Mohammedan religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in the Koran, Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans.
They must be put to fire and sword. Now if we tell a Mohammedan that this is wrong, he will naturally ask, "How do you know that? How do you know it is not good? My book says it is. Dayanand Saraswati calls the concept of Islam to be highly offensive, and doubted that there is any connection of Islam with God:. Had the God of the Quran been the Lord of all creatures, and been Merciful and kind to all, he would never have commanded the Mohammedans to slaughter men of other faiths, and animals, etc.
If he is Merciful, will he show mercy even to the sinners? If the answer be given in the affirmative, it cannot be true, because further on it is said in the Quran "Put infidels to sword," in other words, he that does not believe in the Quran and the Prophet Mohammad is an infidel he should, therefore, be put to death. Since the Quran sanctions such cruelty to non-Mohammedans and innocent creatures such as cows it can never be the Word of God.
Pandit Lekh Ram regarded that Islam was grown through the violence and desire for wealth. He further asserted that Muslims deny the entire Islamic prescribed violence and atrocities, and will continue doing so. He wrote:. All educated people start looking down upon the forcible conversions and even started objecting to their very basis. Since then some naturalist Mohammadis [Muslims] are trying, rather opposing falsehood and accepting the truth, to prove unnecessarily and wrongly that Islam never indulged in Jihad and the people were never converted to Islam forcibly.
Neither any temples were demolished nor were ever cows slaughtered in the temples. Women and children belonging to other religious sects were never forcibly converted to Islam nor did they ever commit any sexual acts with them as could have been done with the slave-males and females both. Mahatma Gandhi , the moral leader of the 20th-century Indian independence movement, found the history of Muslims to be aggressive, while he pointed out that Hindus have passed that stage of societal evolution:. Though, in my opinion, non violence has a predominant place in the Quran, the thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the Muslims fighters as a body.
They are therefore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit. The Hindu has an ages old civilization. He is essentially non violent. His civilization has passed through the experiences that the two recent ones are still passing through. If Hinduism was ever imperialistic in the modern sense of the term, it has outlived its imperialism and has either deliberately or as a matter of course given it up.
Predominance of the non violent spirit has restricted the use of arms to a small minority which must always be subordinate to a civil power highly spiritual, learned and selfless. The Hindus as a body are therefore not equipped for fighting. But not having retained their spiritual training, they have forgotten the use of an effective substitute for arms and not knowing their use nor having an aptitude for them, they have become docile to the point of timidity and cowardice.
This vice is therefore a natural excrescence of gentleness. Jawaharlal Nehru , the first Prime Minister of India , in his book Discovery of India , describes Islam to have been a faith for military conquests. He wrote "Islam had become a more rigid faith suited more to military conquests rather than the conquests of the mind", and that Muslims brought nothing new to his country. The Muslims who came to India from outside brought no new technique or political or economic structure. In spite of religious belief in the brotherhood of Islam, they were class bound and feudal in outlook.
Iranian writer Sadegh Hedayat regarded Islam as the corrupter of Iran , he said:. Every aspect of life and thought, including women's condition, changed after Islam. Enslaved by men, women were confined to the home. Polygamy, injection of fatalistic attitude, mourning, sorrow and grief led people to seek solace in magic, witchcraft, prayer, and supernatural beings. Nobel prize -winning novelist V. Naipaul stated that Islam requires its adherents to destroy everything which is not related to it.
He described it as having a:. Calamitous effect on converted peoples, to be converted you have to destroy your past, destroy your history. You have to stamp on it, you have to say 'my ancestral culture does not exist, it doesn't matter'. Nobel prize -winning playwright Wole Soyinka stated that Islam had a role in denigrating African spiritual traditions. He criticized attempts to whitewash what he sees as the destructive and coercive history of Islam on the continent:.
Let those who wish to retain or evaluate religion as a twenty-first project feel free to do so, but let it not be done as a continuation of the game of denigration against the African spiritual heritage as in a recent television series perpetrated by Islam's born again revisionist of history, Professor Ali Mazrui. Soyinka also regarded Islam as "superstition", and said that it does not belong to Africa. He stated that it is mainly spread with violence and force.
Tatars Tengrists , criticize Islam as a semitic religion, which forced Turks to submission to an alien culture. Submission and humility, two significant components of Islamic spirituality, are disregarded as major failings of Islam, not as virtues. Further, since Islam mentions semitic history as if it were the history of all mankind, but disregards components of other cultures and spirituality, the international approach of Islam is seen as a threat.
It additionally gives Imams an opportunity to march against their own people under the banner of international Islam. Originality of Quranic manuscripts. According to traditional Islamic scholarship, all of the Quran was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive during — CE , but it was primarily an orally related document. The written compilation of the whole Quran in its definite form as we have it now was not completed until many years after the death of Muhammad. Nevo argue that all the primary sources which exist are from — years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events.
Imperfections in the Quran. Critics reject the idea that the Quran is miraculously perfect and impossible to imitate as asserted in the Quran itself. Critics, however, argue that peculiarities can be found in the text. For example, critics note that a sentence in which something is said concerning Allah is sometimes followed immediately by another in which Allah is the speaker examples of this are suras xvi. Many peculiarities in the positions of words are due to the necessities of rhyme lxix. Judaism and the Quran.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia , "The dependence of Mohammed upon his Jewish teachers or upon what he heard of the Jewish Haggadah and Jewish practices is now generally conceded. Some of this negative reaction is undoubtedly due to its radicalness Wansbrough's work has been embraced wholeheartedly by few and has been employed in a piecemeal fashion by many. Many praise his insights and methods, if not all of his conclusions. Bernard Lewis describes this as "something like what in Christian history was called a Judaizing heresy.
Mohammed and God as speakers. According to Ibn Warraq , the Iranian rationalist Ali Dashti criticized the Quran on the basis that for some passages, "the speaker cannot have been God. Furthermore, it is also known that one of the companions of Muhammad, Ibn Masud , rejected Surah Fatihah as being part of the Quran; these kind of disagreements are, in fact, common among the companions of Muhammad who could not decide which surahs were part of the Quran and which not.
Critics point to various pre-existing sources to argue against the traditional narrative of revelation from God. Some scholars have calculated that one-third of the Quran has pre-Islamic Christian origins. Hadith are Muslim traditions relating to the Sunnah words and deeds of Muhammad. They are drawn from the writings of scholars writing between and CE, more than years after the death of Mohammed in CE. The four schools of Sunni Islam all consider Hadith second only to the Quran, although they differ on how much freedom of interpretation should be allowed to legal scholars.
The Shi'as accept the Sunnah of Ali and the Imams as authoritative in addition to the Sunnah of Muhammad, and as a consequence they maintain their own, different, collections of Hadith. It has been suggested that there exists around the Hadith three major sources of corruption: political conflicts, sectarian prejudice, and the desire to translate the underlying meaning, rather than the original words verbatim.
Muslim critics of the hadith, Quranists , reject the authority of hadith on theological grounds, pointing to verses in the Quran itself: " Nothing have We omitted from the Book ",  declaring that all necessary instruction can be found within the Quran, without reference to the Hadith. They claim that following the Hadith has led to people straying from the original purpose of God's revelation to Muhammad, adherence to the Quran alone.
A fatwa , ruling, signed by more than a thousand orthodox clerics, denounced him as a 'kafir', a non-believer. John Esposito notes that "Modern Western scholarship has seriously questioned the historicity and authenticity of the hadith ", maintaining that "the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad were actually written much later.
Orthodox Muslims do not deny the existence of false hadith, but believe that through the scholars' work, these false hadith have been largely eliminated. The traditional view of Islam has also been criticised for the lack of supporting evidence consistent with that view, such as the lack of archaeological evidence, and discrepancies with non-Muslim literary sources.
They tried to correct or reconstruct the early history of Islam from other, presumably more reliable, sources such as coins, inscriptions, and non-Islamic sources. The oldest of this group was John Wansbrough — Wansbrough's works were widely noted, but perhaps not widely read.
The German scholar Gerd R. Puin has been investigating these Quran fragments for years. His research team made 35, microfilm photographs of the manuscripts, which he dated to early part of the 8th century. Puin has not published the entirety of his work, but noted unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography. He also suggested that some of the parchments were palimpsests which had been reused. Puin believed that this implied a text that changed over time as opposed to one that remained the same.
Kaaba is the most sacred site in Islam. In her book, Islam: A Short History , Karen Armstrong asserts that the Kaaba was officially dedicated to Hubal , a Nabatean deity, and contained idols that probably represented the days of the year. The others also allegedly had counterparts of the Black Stone. There was a "red stone", the deity of the south Arabian city of Ghaiman, and the "white stone" in the Kaaba of al-Abalat near the city of Tabala, south of Mecca. Grunebaum in Classical Islam points out that the experience of divinity of that period was often associated with stone fetishes , mountains, special rock formations, or "trees of strange growth.
This idol was one of the chief deities of the ruling tribe Quraysh. The idol was made of red agate and shaped like a human, but with the right hand broken off and replaced with a golden hand. When the idol was moved inside the Kaaba, it had seven arrows in front of it, which were used for divination. They depict it as a city grown rich on the proceeds of the spice trade. Patricia Crone believes that this is an exaggeration and that Mecca may only have been an outpost trading with nomads for leather, cloth, and camel butter.
Crone argues that if Mecca had been a well-known center of trade, it would have been mentioned by later authors such as Procopius , Nonnosus , or the Syrian church chroniclers writing in Syriac. The town is absent, however, from any geographies or histories written in the three centuries before the rise of Islam. Muhammad is considered as one of the prophets in Islam and as a model for followers.
Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf wrote a poetic eulogy commemorating the slain Quraish notables; later, he had traveled to Mecca and provoked the Quraish to fight Muhammad. He also wrote erotic poetry about Muslim women, which offended the Muslims there. Other sources also state that he was plotting to assassinate Muhammad. Muhammad ibn Maslama offered his services, collecting four others. By pretending to have turned against Muhammad, Muhammad ibn Maslama and the others enticed Ka'b out of his fortress on a moonlit night,  and killed him in spite of his vigorous resistance.
According to scriptural Sunni's Hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated. Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari , born in Persia years after Muhammmad's death, suggested that she was ten years old.
Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi , born about years after Muhammad's death, cited Hisham ibn Urwah as saying that she was nine years old at marriage, and twelve at consummation,  but Hisham ibn Urwah 's original source is otherwise unknown, and Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi 's work does not have the high religious status of the Hadith. In the twentieth century, Indian writer Muhammad Ali challenged the Hadith showing that Aisha was as young as the traditional sources claim; arguing that instead a new interpretation of the Hadith compiled by Mishkat al-Masabih , Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, could indicate that Aisha would have been nineteen years old around the time of her marriage.
Colin Turner, a UK professor of Islamic studies ,  states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among the Bedouins , Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries. Marriages conducted in absentia to seal an alliance were often contracted at this time between adults and minors who were even younger than Aisha.
According to some critics, the morality of the Quran appears to be a moral regression when judged by the standards of the moral traditions of Judaism and Christianity it says that it builds upon. The Catholic Encyclopedia , for example, states that "the ethics of Islam are far inferior to those of Judaism and even more inferior to those of the New Testament" and "that in the ethics of Islam there is a great deal to admire and to approve, is beyond dispute; but of originality or superiority, there is none.
In The End of Faith Harris argues that Muslim extremism is simply a consequence of taking the Quran literally, and is skeptical that moderate Islam is possible. Henry Martyn claims that the concept of the Houris was chosen to satisfy Muhammad's followers. Bernard Lewis writes: "In one of the sad paradoxes of human history , it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire. Similarly, the practice of freeing slaves in atonement for certain sins appears to be introduced by the Quran but compare Exod The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time.
Critics argue unlike Western societies which in their opposition to slavery spawned anti-slavery movements whose numbers and enthusiasm often grew out of church groups, no such grass-roots organizations ever developed in Muslim societies. In Muslim politics the state unquestioningly accepted the teachings of Islam and applied them as law.
Islam, by sanctioning slavery, also extended legitimacy to the traffic in slaves. According to Maurice Middleberg, however, " Sura 90 in the Quran states that the righteous path involves 'the freeing of slaves. He did not set out to abolish slavery, but rather to improve the conditions of slaves by urging his followers to treat their slaves humanely and free them as a way of expiating one's sins which some modern Muslim authors have interpreted as indication that Muhammad envisioned a gradual abolition of slavery.
Critics say it was only in the early 20th century post World War I that slavery gradually became outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France. By legitimizing slavery and — by extension — traffic in slaves, Islam elevated those practices to an unassailable moral plane. As a result, in no part of the Muslim world was an ideological challenge ever mounted against slavery.kundbraclikcontto.cf
Abraham the Patriarch of Three Great Religions? Nonsense, Argues a New Book – Tablet Magazine
The political and social system in Muslim society would have taken a dim view of such a challenge. However, In Islamic jurisprudence , slavery was theoretically an exceptional condition under the dictum The basic principle is liberty al-'asl huwa 'l-hurriya , so that for a foundling or another person whose status was unknown freedom was presumed and enslavement forbidden. The issue of slavery in the Islamic world in modern times is controversial. Critics argue there is hard evidence of its existence and destructive effects.
Others maintain slavery in central Islamic lands has been virtually extinct since mid-twentieth century, and that reports from Sudan and Somalia showing practice of slavery is in border areas as a result of continuing war  and not Islamic belief. In recent years, according to some scholars,  there has been a "worrying trend" of "reopening" of the issue of slavery by some conservative Salafi Islamic scholars after its "closing" earlier in the 20th century when Muslim countries banned slavery and "most Muslim scholars" found the practice "inconsistent with Qur'anic morality.
Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri of Karbala expressed the view in that the enforcement of servitude can occur but is restricted to war captives and those born of slaves. In a issue of their digital magazine Dabiq , the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant explicitly claimed religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women. According to Islamic law apostasy is identified by a list of actions such as conversion to another religion, denying the existence of God , rejecting the prophets , mocking God or the prophets, idol worship, rejecting the sharia , or permitting behavior that is forbidden by the sharia, such as adultery or the eating of forbidden foods or drinking of alcoholic beverages.
The kind of apostasy which the jurists generally deemed punishable was of the political kind, although there were considerable legal differences of opinion on this matter. Laws prohibiting religious conversion run contrary to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which states that "[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Bosworth suggests the traditional view of apostasy hampered the development of Islamic learning, arguing that while the organizational form of the Christian university allowed them to develop and flourish into the modern university, "the Muslim ones remained constricted by the doctrine of waqf alone, with their physical plant often deteriorating hopelessly and their curricula narrowed by the exclusion of the non-traditional religious sciences like philosophy and natural science," out of fear that these could evolve into potential toe-holds for kufr , those people who reject God.
At a human rights conference at Mofid University in Qom , Araki stated that "if an individual doubts Islam, he does not become the subject of punishment, but if the doubt is openly expressed , this is not permissible. In 13 Muslim-majority countries atheism is punishable by death. This principle was upheld "even in extreme situations", such as when an offender adopts Islam "only for fear of death", based on the hadith that Muhammad had upbraided a follower for killing a raider who had uttered the shahada.
The penalty for apostasy in Islamic law is death. Islam is conceived as a polity, not just as a religious community. It follows therefore that apostasy is treason. It is a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty. Any sustained and principled opposition to the existing regime or order almost inevitably involves such a withdrawal. The four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence , as well as Shi'a scholars, agree on the difference of punishment between male and female.
A sane adult male apostate may be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to the majority view, or imprisoned until she repents, according to others. The Quran threatens apostates with punishment in the next world only, the historian W. Heffening states, the traditions however contain the element of death penalty. William Montgomery Watt , in response to a question about Western views of the Islamic Law as being cruel, states that "In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer.
Some contemporary Islamic jurists from both the Sunni and Shia denominations together with Quran only Muslims have argued or issued fatwas that state that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances. Montazeri defines different types of apostasy. He does not hold that a reversion of belief because of investigation and research is punishable by death but prescribes capital punishment for a desertion of Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim. According to Yohanan Friedmann , an Israeli Islamic Studies scholar, a Muslim may stress tolerant elements of Islam by for instance adopting the broadest interpretation of Quran "No compulsion is there in religion Similarly neither Judaism nor Christianity treated apostasy and apostates with any particular kindness".
The real predicament facing modern Muslims with liberal convictions is not the existence of stern laws against apostasy in medieval Muslim books of law, but rather the fact that accusations of apostasy and demands to punish it are heard time and again from radical elements in the contemporary Islamic world. Some widely held interpretations of Islam are inconsistent with Human Rights conventions that recognize the right to change religion. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion of his choice. The right for Muslims to change their religion is not afforded by the Iranian Shari'ah law , which specifically forbids it. In , the Iranian representative to the United Nations , Said Rajaie-Khorassani , articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.
The prosecution of converts from Islam on the basis of religious edicts that identify apostasy as an offense punishable by death is clearly at variance with this obligation. Abul Ala Maududi , the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami ,  wrote a book called Human Rights in Islam ,  in which he argues that respect for human rights has always been enshrined in Sharia law indeed that the roots of these rights are to be found in Islamic doctrine  and criticizes Western notions that there is an inherent contradiction between the two.
The September 11 attacks on the United States, and various other acts of Islamic terrorism over the 21st century, have resulted in many non-Muslims' indictment of Islam as a violent religion. On the one hand, some critics claim that certain verses of the Quran sanction military action against unbelievers as a whole both during the lifetime of Muhammad and after.
The Quran says, "Fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you.
Related The Islamic Doctrine of Christians and Jews (A Taste of Islam Book 6)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved