Live and let live

democrates

I'm an optimist about most of the problems facing the world, but the one that causes me most concern is religious fundamentalism.

All religions have extremists, but they simply argue that their faith is absolute whereas moderates are not true believers. I've no issue with people choosing to believe what they wish, but the religious state and martyrdom are not something I welcome.

Given the religious conflicts we see today in the world, what positive measures would allow people to get on better together, even with diverse faiths?

marco murphy

Well first of all - take London,the aftermath. A lot if not most muslim youth in England feel they dont have a voice - give them a voice.

And if you mean Al Qieda and the like by fundamentalism in Islam... they ARE'NT muslims.They dont speak for Islam.

EDIT : Hope that answered your question.
Fundamentalists we see today probably will never be satisfied.

tonyj

Poblachtach wrote:

Well first of all - take London,the aftermath. A lot if not most muslim youth in England feel they dont have a voice - give them a voice.

"take London, the aftermath"... and then you go on to talk about Muslim youth. Were you trying to create some link between what happened in London and Muslim youth wanting a voice? Or was this just a disjointed attempt at making a mention of the London bombings?

It didn't take long for you to raise the subject. But now that you have I'd like to comment that as a Londoner I thought the timing of your request for this forum was quite inappropriate. 5 days after the bombings to be exact.

I think my suspicions around why you suggested the forum in the first place are confirmed. :mad:

democrates

Look I know these are troubled times and people are hurting, so can we try to keep it as positive and tolerant as possible. People post because they care enough to, and want to make the world a better place, so can we start by staking out that common ground at least.

My hope in starting this thread was to get ideas for measures that will make things better. Inevitably this entails looking at what is wrong and needs to be fixed, but I hope that doesn't lead people to get embroiled in a blame game.

It was a brave move by the admins to start this forum, let's not let them down.

One idea i had was the possibilty of teaching a bit about all the major religions in school. That would hopefully create tolerance and understanding, whilst reducing fear of the different. I was raised a Catholic and went to a Christian Brothers school, but I got no information about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc.

What do you think?

Hobbes

tonyj wrote:

It didn't take long for you to raise the subject. But now that you have I'd like to comment that as a Londoner I thought the timing of your request for this forum was quite inappropriate. 5 days after the bombings to be exact.

So how long do you suggest the world stops spinning before you can suggest such a forum? Is 5 a magical number or something?

And he does have a point, or do you think the only victims of that day were the people reported? btw, this is getting offtopic you want to continue discussing it I recommend politics or humanities.

*snip*

No I didn't. Your point on this thread was?

Talliesin

tonyj wrote:

It didn't take long for you to raise the subject. But now that you have I'd like to comment that as a Londoner I thought the timing of your request for this forum was quite inappropriate. 5 days after the bombings to be exact.

I thought it was highly appropriate. If ever there was a time when it would be a good thing for Muslims to have a forum that on the one hand "belongs" to them, but on the other hand is open to non-Muslims and will be frequented by non-Muslims then it is now.

The fact that you seem to be buying Al Quaeda propaganda and associating the bombings with Islam is proof of such potential value to this forum in itself.

marco murphy

There is nothing wrong with my post. Ask 10 youths in london do they have a voice in their communities - at least 5 will say no.

I do hope this isnt going to turn into a "them" against "us" thread.
Anyway some of the London Bombers were in their 20's and 30's, they were hardly all youths...

They are not to reasonably minded people, the true voice of Islam either,in fact their peers regard most muslims(and the rest of us) as some kind of heathen afaik for not following their extreme murderous ways.

marco murphy

AFAIK is right, as i havent heard nor would i be convinced easily that that is the case with the parents

They might not have been all youths but i doubt thats the point.

Stimpyone

Poblachtach wrote:

There is nothing wrong with my post. Ask 10 youths in london do they have a voice in their communities - at least 5 will say no.

Do the same in Dublin amongst the catholic youth and I think you'll be surprised at the answer. One of the trappings of youth is the assumption that the older generation ( inc government etc ) do not understand them. When really the inability of both sides communicate is where the major stumbling block lies.

marco murphy

Ill tell you the inability to communicate in the UK. Tony Blair invited about 50 clerics who have been in the UK for abut 2 years and could hardly speak english. Not one youth was present. This was after the bombings may i add.

shoutman

Poblachtach wrote:

Well first of all - take London,the aftermath. A lot if not most muslim youth in England feel they dont have a voice - give them a voice.
/QUOTE]

now i may be way off the point here, but are you trying to justify the london bombings by saying that muslim youths feel marginilised?

Talliesin

Bombs used to be planted in London by people who grew up as Northern Irish Catholics who felt they had no voice.

Irish people, and Northern Irish Catholics in particular, used to have to deal with knee-jerk backlashes against them in the wake of those bombings.

This increased the resentment that was behind the support some had for the bombings.

Stimpyone

Poblachtach wrote:

Ill tell you the inability to communicate in the UK. Tony Blair invited about 50 clerics who have been in the UK for abut 2 years and could hardly speak english. Not one youth was present. This was after the bombings may i add.

I understand the point your trying to put across, but what did you expect a gang load of lads turning up at number 10 for a chat with Tony. Why not get a few of the boys from the Sheriff down to Berties for a few tins of Bass and a pow wow.

Are these clerics that went to see Blair not leading members of their communities? would the Islamic youth not be better talking to to the clerics? and therefore voicing their opinions. Is this where the problem lies?.

side note.. nothing I have written is intended to be inflammatory or insulting

tonyinuae

How exactly does one give youths of any persuasion a voice? Were the clerics who were invited not free to suggest that some youths come along, too? I doubt the clerics would have allowed that, in fact. It's a top-down attitude as far as I can see, and I've lived in the Gulf since 1982. A hierarchical approach, I mean. Their own communities should give them a voice, surely?

tonyinuae

One of the ways the fundamentalist clerics seduce the youth into violence is by playing a 'them-and-us blame game' - it's always somebody else's fault. It's a neat trick, but it leads to negative results.

Talliesin

Talliesin wrote:

Bombs used to be planted in London by people who grew up as Northern Irish Catholics who felt they had no voice.

Thats true.
However they were in a tiny tiny minority amonst their co nationalists.
As are the London bombers amongst the wider Islamic community.
In fact the latter are being anti Islamic just as much as the IRA bombers who carried catholicism as a large excuse for their carry on were being anti catholic.

There has to be a different category for the mis guided in my view , they cannot be using a Religion or ideal that the vast vast majority interpret differently (and correctly in the view of what I would consider the Sane) as a basis for bombing to correct a misguided perception of dis enfranchisement.
There has to come a point when a line is drawn and they(the likes of the London Bombers) are described more correctly as mis guided criminals.

Stimpyone

Agreed Earthman. However the only people that can do this with any creditability are the Clerics. IMO I think they have not condemned these perversions of the Islamic faith enough. They really need to disown these people period!.

shoutman

I totally agree with stimpyman,
IMHO the muslim faith as a whole in the UK and most of the world I must add have not spoke out against these terrorists far from loud enough, which can lead to only one outcome that there is a large enough proportion of the muslim world which agrees or sympathizes with these terrorist autrocities.

I also think that to draw comparisons between the rafia in the north bombing the UK and British Muslims doing the same is slight asque (SP?)
Firstly Republican Catholics in the north believed they were fighting for liberation from the occupying British army, where as the london bombers merely thought that by killing as much innocent civilians as possible they would be respected more by there god.

In my opinion The muslim leadership hasnt gone near far enough and surely a simple solution to a complicated problem would be for the clerical leadership to issue a edict stating that anyone involved in terrorism or the killing of innocent civilians, or those who preech terrorism will be excommunicated from the muslim faith at once,
Now im no expert on Islam, but surely there is provisions in the Islamic faith to issue such an eddict.

CerebralCortex

Hobbes wrote:

No I didn't. Your point on this thread was?

I think its a weird religion.

Hobbes

shoutman wrote:

IMHO the muslim faith as a whole in the UK and most of the world I must add have not spoke out against these terrorists far from loud enough,

From what I have read they all publically condemmed it as well as the community helping out in the investigations. How loud do you want it?

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2051

Kind of shoots holes in your argument.

Firstly Republican Catholics in the north believed they were fighting for liberation from the occupying British army, where as the london bombers merely thought that by killing as much innocent civilians as possible they would be respected more by there god.

Actually your wrong. If you did your research they are fighting for a reason. Respect from God bit is just a bonus.

tonyj

Talliesin wrote:

The fact that you seem to be buying Al Quaeda propaganda and associating the bombings with Islam is proof of such potential value to this forum in itself.

I'm not "buying the propaganda" - It isn't targetted at me. It's targetted at Muslim youth. Hence the bombings.

It doesn't take Al-Queda to tell me the bombings are associated with Islam. What religion were the bombers? How many Clerics not only refused to condem the bombers, but actually implied their support?

democrates wrote:

My hope in starting this thread was to get ideas for measures that will make things better. Inevitably this entails looking at what is wrong and needs to be fixed, but I hope that doesn't lead people to get embroiled in a blame game.

The British government has already made some inroads into identifying these problems and fixing them.

Targetting the extremists and arresting or deporting them is an excellent start.

democrates wrote:

One idea i had was the possibilty of teaching a bit about all the major religions in school. That would hopefully create tolerance and understanding, whilst reducing fear of the different. I was raised a Catholic and went to a Christian Brothers school, but I got no information about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc.

And should Muslim schools reciprocate by teaching their children about other religions such as Judaism and Christianity?

Hobbes made a very good point. The place for this discussion is not on a forum allegedly created to discuss Islam 'the religion'. In fact, I would suggest that any discussion around;

- War (including Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq)
- Politics (Including Bush and Blair, or the 'Islamic state')
- Terror / terrorism (9/11, Madrid, the London bombings)

Would be far more appropriate in the politics or humanities forums.

Stabshauptmann

CerebralCortex wrote:

I think its a weird religion.

Thats the comment you have in a thread called "live and let live"??
Boggles the mind.

Hobbes

CerebralCortex wrote:

I think its a weird religion.

Take a week off to think about it.

Talliesin

CerebralCortex wrote:

I think its a weird religion.

So do I. Thankfully I can still think of more to say or ask about it than that.

Try engaging that Cerebral Cortex of yours a bit more.

Talliesin

tonyj wrote:

I'm not "buying the propaganda" - It isn't targetted at me. It's targetted at Muslim youth. Hence the bombings.

It's targetted more at the non-Islamic citizens of England. Al Quaeda can rely on their being a few hotheads amongst the non-Islamic citizens to do their propagandising within the Islamic community for them.

Like most fanatics Al Quaeda believe that if things come down to a clear-cut them-and-us they will win. Therefore they want things to get as them-and-us as possible as quickly as possible.

tonyj wrote:

What religion were the bombers?

The same religion as the people who invented hospitals.

tonyj wrote:

And should Muslim schools reciprocate by teaching their children about other religions such as Judaism and Christianity?

An educated person should have some knowledge of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

tonyj wrote:

Hobbes made a very good point. The place for this discussion is not on a forum allegedly created to discuss Islam 'the religion'. In fact, I would suggest that any discussion around;

- War (including Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq)
- Politics (Including Bush and Blair, or the 'Islamic state')
- Terror / terrorism (9/11, Madrid, the London bombings)

Would be far more appropriate in the politics or humanities forums.

For the most part I agree. However the image a religion has, rightly or wrongly, should be a topic for discussion on a forum about that religion IMO, as has been the case on the Paganism and Christianity forums.

There is a fine line between discussing the fact that some people perceive all Muslims as potential terrorists and regurgitating the same arguments about whether they actually are or not, but that line is there IMO.

shoutman

Hobbes wrote:

Actually your wrong. If you did your research they are fighting for a reason. Respect from God bit is just a bonus.

so what are they fighting for hobbes?

Stabshauptmann

tonyj wrote:

I'm not "buying the propaganda" - It isn't targetted at me. It's targetted at Muslim youth. Hence the bombings.

The propagand is that they are fighting a jihad (sic) for islamic people everywhere. Apparently a lot of muslims would disagree.

It doesn't take Al-Queda to tell me the bombings are associated with Islam. What religion were the bombers?

Roflmao. What religion were the majority of soldier on both sides in the Vietnam war, was that a religious war.

How many Clerics not only refused to condem the bombers, but actually implied their support?

This has already been discredited

Hobbes made a very good point. The place for this discussion is not on a forum allegedly created to discuss Islam 'the religion'. In fact, I would suggest that any discussion around;

- War (including Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq)
- Politics (Including Bush and Blair, or the 'Islamic state')
- Terror / terrorism (9/11, Madrid, the London bombings)

Would be far more appropriate in the politics or humanities forums.

I personally would like to know why some bombers think the Qu'uran justifies their actions. Im curious, and I dont think Ill find the answer on the politcs board. Im curious to the Islamic reaction to these bombings, I dont think Ill find it in after hours; on that note, I think the timing for this forum was very good.

r3boot

Aaah the very first flame war on this forum (it was bound to happen)

Hobbes

so what are they fighting for hobbes?

Depends on which group you are talking about. If you go look it up they all have very clear demands. Even OBL had a list of demands which was available on many news sites.

Hobbes

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I personally would like to know why some bombers think the Qu'uran justifies their actions.

That is a valid topic on this forum.

However this thread is slowly moving off the topic of the forum. I will move to politics/humanities if it continues that way.

tonyj

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I personally would like to know why some bombers think the Qu'uran justifies their actions. Im curious, and I dont think Ill find the answer on the politcs board. Im curious to the Islamic reaction to these bombings, I dont think Ill find it in after hours; on that note, I think the timing for this forum was very good.

If this is the forum for us to understand the 'image problems' that Islam is currently having, let's hear it from the Muslims on here. I'm also curious.

- What are the extremists fighting for; what are their objectives?
- How do they think the Koran justifies their actions?
- How do Muslims view other religions?
- Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

On the issue of the timing of this forum. I doubt it would have been applauded if the bombings had happened in Dublin.

Hobbes

- What are the extremists fighting for; what are their objectives?

Those sort of questions are not open for discussion on this forum. Only how it relates to the religon.

As for the other questions, no problem there although you should really post them as seperate threads.

Talliesin

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Roflmao. What religion were the majority of soldier on both sides in the Vietnam war, was that a religious war.

Like many points in history there was more than one conflict that is referred to by a single term. The conflict between the minority Roman Catholic rulership of South Viet Nam and the majority Buddhist and animist population did clearly have a religious context. The view of Dialetical Marxism on religion also had an effect, though this was less pronounced under Ho Chi Minh than under, for example, Lenin.

And what does this example tell us about the topic? Simply that pretty much no religion will escape being associated with some conflict some where (at least, not if they have the numbers for a standing army).

marco murphy

tonyj wrote:

If this is the forum for us to understand the 'image problems' that Islam is currently having, let's hear it from the Muslims on here. I'm also curious.

- What are the extremists fighting for; what are their objectives?
- How do they think the Koran justifies their actions?
- How do Muslims view other religions?
- Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

On the issue of the timing of this forum. I doubt it would have been applauded if the bombings had happened in Dublin.

I doubt Dublin would be bombed but i am not a strategist.
The Qur'an doesnt advocate hatred to any other religions unless the religion is fighting muslims.
Jihad - جهاد - doesnt actually translate to ''Holy war''. It means striving or struggle.
It does come from Jahada which means exerting utmost effort.
Jihad appears in the Qur'an around...2 or 3 times but never used in a militant context.
Jihad is made up of 'lesser jihad'' and ''greater jihad''
Lesser is the military struggle and greater is the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires.

Permission to fight is only given to whom are oppressed.

tonyj

Poblachtach wrote:

The Qur'an doesnt advocate hatred to any other religions unless the religion is fighting muslims.
.
.
Permission to fight is only given to whom are oppressed.

Thanks for clarifying that. Is it safe to assume then that the Koran does not promote tolerance of other religions? - quite the opposite.

And taking your statement a stage further, there must be many muslims who feel that they are a) oppressed and b) under attack from other religions. For example the Iraqis; they are being attacked by Christians. And the Palestinians; oppressed AND under attack from the Jews.

So does the Koran justify the terrorist acts committed in Iraq and Israel? At the very least it makes the job of persuasion a lot easier for the extremists. They could well argue that they are staying true to the core teachings of Islam.

I think we are getting closer to addressing the question in this thread; "live and let live" - It is difficult to see how Islam is a religion of peace when there are strings attached.

Hobbes

Tonyj if you make accusations it is up to you to back them up. If you have questions about certain areas ask them.

tonyj

Hobbes wrote:

Tonyj if you make accusations it is up to you to back them up. If you have questions about certain areas ask them.

At the most I was drawing conclusions. But, I'll back it up with some quotes :

"I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).

The infidel is to be "killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land . . . and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." (Surah 5:33)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

My question remains; Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

marco murphy

Well it doesnt promote intolerance

Stabshauptmann

Talliesin wrote:

Like many points in history there was more than one conflict that is referred to by a single term. The conflict between the minority Roman Catholic rulership of South Viet Nam and the majority Buddhist and animist population did clearly have a religious context. The view of Dialetical Marxism on religion also had an effect, though this was less pronounced under Ho Chi Minh than under, for example, Lenin.

And what does this example tell us about the topic? Simply that pretty much no religion will escape being associated with some conflict some where (at least, not if they have the numbers for a standing army).

Seems i picked a poor example, I meant the US invasion of Vietnam, how it was capitalism Vs communism (supposedly) but that you could clearly identify both side by religion

tonyinuae

tonyj wrote:

At the most I was drawing conclusions. But, I'll back it up with some quotes :

"I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).

The infidel is to be "killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land . . . and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." (Surah 5:33)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

My question remains; Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

Good question! The above quotes don't really seem to indicate much in the way of approval or acceptance. Perhaps they are taken out of context, but they give the impression that 'infidels' (are people of the Book 'infidels?) as long as they keep quiet, stay out of the way, and pay money to the Islamic government, will be allowed to stay alive, at least.

The original carriers of the message to other lands, bent on converting others to Islam, did they attain their goal entirely through peaceful means, or was the sword used to help people to submit?

Cake Fiend

tonyj wrote:

Is it safe to assume then that the Koran does not promote tolerance of other religions? - quite the opposite.

You could say the same abou the Bible. In fact, I doubt any major religious text would advocate other religions

Hobbes

tonyinuae wrote:

The original carriers of the message to other lands, bent on converting others to Islam, did they attain their goal entirely through peaceful means, or was the sword used to help people to submit?

Which I am not entirely sure what you are getting at. The same can be said for a lot of religons. Christianty was enforced at times by far from peaceful means as well.

I may also stamp on "getting context" from quotes from people. Rather then people quoting a part to get their point across (You can prove anything with the Bible doing the same thing). I was hoping people would cover the context in which quotes are given as replies. I will see how it pans out.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Which I am not entirely sure what you are getting at. The same can be said for a lot of religons. Christianty was enforced at times by far from peaceful means as well.

Agreed. Christians, Jews, Hindus etc have sadly all used force to promote their religion. Though it would be my contention that aggressive action certainly seems to be more tolerated and indeed in some instances promoted in the basic religious teachings of Islam. If someone can find a quote(out of context or not) where Buddha, Jesus or whoever suggests killing, enslaving or taxing unbelievers, I'd be very surprised.

That said there is much in Islam(and the history of same) that is good. The issue I have is a lot of the good(for me at least) is lost when the aggressive parts are considered. Those same aggressive passages that give succour to those who bring disgrace to Muslims and humanity in general.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

If someone can find a quote(out of context or not) where Buddha, Jesus or whoever suggests killing, enslaving or taxing unbelievers, I'd be very surprised.

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."

Luke 2:22 refers to Mary being unclean after Jesus birth.

John 15:6 refers to burning heretics.

Romans 1:26-32 Gays/Lesbians should be killed.

Corithians 11:3-15 refers to that Men are more important then women.

Corithians 14:24-35 tells women they should not talk only learn from thier husbands.

Ephesians 5:22-23 tells wives should submit to their husbands.

Timothy 2:11-14 implies women are inferior to men.

Timothy 3:2,12 More than one wife is allowed unless you a bishop or deacon.

Timothy 6:1-5 Human slavery is endorsed

Peter 3:1-7 Women should talk to their husbands in fear

Revelations 17:1-6 A whore is stripped, burned, and eaten.

...

Now I am only posting these to prove a point. If people continue to post quotes to claim out of context comments I will start stamping down on it.

Talliesin

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Seems i picked a poor example, I meant the US invasion of Vietnam, how it was capitalism Vs communism (supposedly) but that you could clearly identify both side by religion

Not to mention the fact that the Catholics in Australia were very much preaching support for those politicians that backed the Australian involvement in the war in Viet Nam from the pulpit.

Really, you'd be pretty hard pushed to find a conflict where nobody claimed some god or other was on their side.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me....../.....Revelations 17:1-6 A whore is stripped, burned, and eaten.

...

Now I am only posting these to prove a point. If people continue to post quotes to claim out of context comments I will start stamping down on it.

Fair enough, though other than the first four, the rest are quotes by those following after the originator of the faith(especially Paul).

Anyway, I'm not defending any religion. I'm not a practising Buddhist, Christian, Jew or whatever(simpsons quote ahoy). They all have issues that need addressing. However this is the Islam forum and I just wanted an opinion from Muslims out there on their take on this aspect(among others) of their faith, both good and bad.

In any event there are far more numerous and directly aggressive passages in Islam, both in the Quran and Hadeeth(the life and sayings of the Prophet). The Hadeeth in particular goes further than the Quran in this.

Anyway I take your point that out of context quoting is an issue. Then again how can one have a discussion on these issues if no quotes are posted to back up arguments, for or against. I know that faith of any kind is a sensitive issue, but in the other religious forums, responsible quotes, out of context or not are left for those to agree or defend the point made. should this forum be any different?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Anyway I take your point that out of context quoting is an issue. Then again how can one have a discussion on these issues if no quotes are posted to back up arguments, for or against.

Well I am hoping that other posters will explain the context of quotes used. For the moment I am seeing people posting quotes and then using that quote to springboard everything that is wrong about Islam. The quote may as proven be out of context or not something that is enforced. Much in the same way to the bible quotes I posted.

r3boot

tonyj wrote:

At the most I was drawing conclusions. But, I'll back it up with some quotes :

"I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).

The infidel is to be "killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land . . . and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." (Surah 5:33)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

My question remains; Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

interpretation of the quran and sunnah is incrediably difficult. even for native arabic speakers. The transilations which you provide give no context as to which ayah they are from and do not seem to be word for word transilations but rather an interpretation of the original classical arabic the quauran was written in at the time of the prophet (or rather after his death I think).

Also give the names of the surahs rather than numbers in future since most muslims learn surahs by names and if you are quoting from the pprphet then you need to mention who gave the quote.

i think the 9;29 surrah refers to islamic law as interpreted in the 7th century and mentions punishments for stealing. Also I think crucification was banned under islamic law since the time of the prophet so I'm not sure whats going on there.

and al-bukhari is not a book its the name of the author of a book which collected quotations form the prophet (a.k.a sunnah). The book you are referring to is called saheeh of al bukhari.

In relation to your original question on acceptance in islam. During the time of the prophet muslims lived side by side with other religions in the arabian peninsula (or at least thats when most historical texts say) and the prophet often only went to war when he was forced to so I guess that the original followers of islam had to promote tolerance in their community in order to survive.

Scottish

As people seem to be looking for quotes to justify this or that, I thought I'd publish an interesting link to an article by Karen Armstrong in the Guardian the other day.

Her thesis is that literal interpretation of scripture of any kind is a recent phenomenon, brought about by the rise of reason and science.

Well worth a read, as people seem to be looking for context etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1546558,00.html

The only religion I follow, incidentally, is Partick Thistle Football Club. It must be a religion, due to the amount of blind faith and suffering involved. It also, perversely gives rise to the belief that there is no God!

Hobbes

Good post r3boot. Actually the misconceptions link I posted in the charter covers more or less what you said.

Islam does not tolerate other religons however it does tolerate those who worship other religons and to kill anyone who follows those religons for that reason means your going to hell.