Thank you, I was worried that people actually believed that the Quran wasn't hostile vs non-muslims.

A few questions for OP:

- Do you think it's logical 'Allah' would choose a man like Mohammed (who was, iirc, very sinful in his actions, e.g.: multiple wifes, including 9 year old aicha, violent man (vs jews for example) to communicate the 'Word of God'?

- How does Islam views the Christian Holy Trinity?

- When I was in Egypt a while back, I watched a little bit of Quran on TV, where presumably an Imam was reciting the Quran. I heard some stories that I recognized from the Bible, but that were 'twisted' to make the chosen Jewish people look bad, weak and scared. Do you agree with this view, or was this clearly not the case? If you agree, did you find some more passages that looked more like emotional influenced sayings that purely divine/rational sayings?

What do you think about the controversy in Malaysia where some Islamists oppose non-Muslims using Allah to refer to God?

http://www.slate.com/id/2244045/

Yeah, as I said before, there are quite violent passages in the Qur'an as there are in other holy books. On the other hand whether certain verses and passages of the Qur'an as universal commandments that should be followed regardless of the context is the subject of the Islamic science of "Tafsir" (exegesis) which has a long and venerable history in Islam. The verses that you quoted are generally the verses of the Medina period where the newly established mini Islamic city state was trying literally to survive in a hostile environment. The Meccan aristocracy did not like the egalitarian message of the Qur'an and first forced Muhammad and the early Muslims to immigrate to Yathrib (later, Medina) and then engaged with this small community of Muslims in a series of Wars between 625 and 630. Muslims did not have much of a choice other than fighting or giving up their religion really. So, they fought back, and these verses, in general, encourages them to not lose their faith in the face of aggression and fight back. In order to understand the historical context of the verses and decide whether they are intended as unbreakable rules or not, you need to go beyond the simple reading of the Qur'an and read the often lengthy exegetical literature on Qur'an. A good place to start might be one of the earliest "Tafsirs" written by Al-Tabari. Then you may understand why your objections do not hold much of a ground.
Cheers

Perhaps...I think that might be the case since the majority of scientists, especially natural scientists, are hopelessly naive about their understanding of history and human psychology. But, I may be wrong, of course.
Cheers

Galen and other Greek and Hellenistic philosophers and scientists entered into the picture after the "translation movement" in the Abbasid Empire in the eighth century (that is very very late compared to the period of Muhammad). It is almost certain that Muhammad, or his followers for that matter, did not know much about Greek science and philosophy.

How do you explain the countries, where large majorities of the population are atheists?

How is marrying to more than one woman sinful? Does not that ultimately depend on how you define "sin"? I think you are so engrossed in your world-view that you do not see your own prejudices. I am not a believer in any religion, but a Muslim would reply to you by pointing out that the issue of whom would God choose as a recipient of his revelation is not your business but God's. After all, why did he choose before a humble carpenter from Palestine rather than a philosopher from Rome? Also, as a historian, I can say quite clearly and rather comfortably that Muhammad was not a violent man. Far from it, in fact, he was a pragmatical leader who always tried to choose the peaceful method of dealing with people, and resorted to force only when it is absolutely unavoidable. Regarding the trinity, I think I already explained in one of the earlier posts that Muslims only see God as divine (the concept of "tawhid" in Arabic). Jesus is referred as the "word of God" in the Qur'an and Muslims believe that he was miraculously born from a virgin named Mary. His being born fatherless is not so different from the creation of the first man, Adam, who was also fatherless, by God. Adam, or any other man, for that matter, was not divine. Neither was Jesus Christ, who is nevertheless revered and loved by the Muslims as one of the greatest messengers of God. I hope this was helpful.
Cheers

This is what I wanted most explained. Thanks damaci!

They replace one set of irrational beliefs (i.e religion) with another set of irrational beliefs ("there is something spiritual in the universe", "I think yoga will make me full of love and compassion for the humans", "Detroit Pistons are the greatest team ever, and I will paint my whole body to prove that" etc.).
Cheers

People are ignorant? Now that is some news, huh? Allah simply means "the God" in Arabic. Arab Christians use it all the time to refer to God.
Cheers

Didn't you say it couldn't be replaced?

edit: nevermind. I see you are saying that irrationality can't be replaced by science and rationality, but noting now that people can exchange various irrational views for religion.

I said it could not be replaced by science or rationality. You can always replace your religion with other religions (traditional or secular ones).

Yeah, post away... I may visit the thread later to answer them.
Cheers

I suppose you can try that route. There is still a very large difference in outlook on life, between the devoutly religious and the atheist, even if the atheist likes yoga or baseball.

This may sound ignorant, as I never learned much of anything about Islam through formal education, but what you've described as Islam's view towards Christ is really quite surprising to me.

I'm having difficulty reconciling the practical differences between Christianity and Islam. How does Islam view the various Pauline writings? Does Islam accept that faith alone that Jesus Christ is Lord is sufficient to be "saved"?

And I realize you've said that Jesus is not considered to be God by Islam...but there are those who say that Jesus can be viewed as "Lord" and the "Son of God" without believing that Jesus actually IS God. So, in practice, what's the difference?

What is their general view towards Buddhists? Did they have much interaction in the past?

What route? Humans have evolved from lesser primates. They are only partially and imperfectly rational. I gave the examples of benign secular religions above, but you may replace them with malign secular religions such as Pol pot in Cambodia, Shining Path in Peru or the Nazis in Germany to see the weakness of your argument. In any case, I am willing to continue the conversation if you wish to do so.
Cheers

It is alright. The level of knowledge about Islam in the western world in general and in the US in particular is abysmal.
In general Islamic theologians do not see Paul positively. I remember passages from the Mathnavi of Rumi where he basically accuses Paul (without directly giving his name) for ruining the earlier message of Jesus Christ and the very early Christians, and creating a new religion (which passes for Christianity today).
In Islam, Monotheism is strict and absolutely uncompromising. In one of the crucial chapters of the Qur'an ("Ihlas", meaning "Purity"), it is explicitly rejected that God has a son: "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only! Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him". So, Muslims do not accept Jesus Christ as the son of God. However as I explained before, they absolutely revere him and love him as one of the highest messengers of God. I hope that was helpful.

Whether the Muslims had contact with the Buddhists during the time of Muhammad is debatable. But in the immediately following period of the Umayyad Dynasty, they established contact with the Buddhists living in ancient Bactria (Afghanistan) and Bukhara (present day Uzbekistan). Buddhists were given the status of "protected people" (dhimmis) as were Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. So, they had to pay some additional taxes but were otherwise free to practice their religion. One needs to understand that Islam has enormous theological flexibility when it comes to relations with other faiths.. After all, from a Muslim perspective, who could claim that Buddha did not receive revelations before Muhammad?
On a side note, i consider Islam and Buddhism (especially the eastern interpretation, the Zen) as the only truly "universal" religions.
Cheers

Ok, this has been bugging me since I read it and I think I've figured out why. You've basically described these sections in a quite rational way that they were drafted by the leader in a political manner in order to help them rally the troupes. I get that.

However, this is a pretty non-theistic approach, of which I approve, however how would an adherent approach these paragraphs? Doesn't the inclusion in the Qu'ran elevate them beyond pragmatic rally cries for a particular time to more general exhortations to be applied throughout history?

More questions....gogogo!

No, the Qur'an contains revelations that continued for 23 years. Some of the earlier verses were negated by some later verses (verses about the prohibition on alcohol, for example).
Muslims, from very early times, accepted that the verses needed to be interpreted in order to understand whether they were referring to historical circumstances (subject to change) or to universal commandments.

Earlier, you had said that Islam views Jesus as the Messiah for whom the Jews were waiting. I guess I'm not understanding how he could be the Messiah, but not the Son of God.

Does Islam dispute various sayings which are attributed to Christ by the New Testament, such as when He confirms to Peter that He IS the Christ (Matthew, ch. 16), or when he says "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to know the Father except through me." (John 14:6)?

I'm not trying to start an argument as to whether Islam is right or wrong about Jesus, I'm just trying to get a more comprehensive grasp for how the New Testament portrayal of Jesus squares with the Islamic view of Jesus.

And thanks for doing this, btw.

I do not think you can successfully argue that the level of irrational thinking in Western Europe is on the level of strongly religious countries.
What I took issue with in your original post, was the argument that religion will be substituted with something equally irrational, I see evidence in my daily life that that is not true.
My point is not, that religion will disappear in the foreseeable future, but simply that people are capable of understanding their lives on a rational basis.
I do not think buying the occasional lottery ticket, or hoping yoga will make you cope with stress compares to believing the world is made of magic.

Muslims agree that Jesus Christ was the Messiah ("Mesih" in Arabic) who was sent by God to be the savior of the Jews. In Islamic understanding, even the Messiah is essentially human.
Whether being a devout Christian today is enough to be rewarded in the afterlife is a debated issue in Islam. There are verses in the Qur'an stating that the true Christians and Jews will have a "reward" in the afterlife, but whether this reward amounts to full salvation is not clear. The majority of the Muslim theologians believe that a Christian who also accepts Muhammad (and this is important) as a genuine messenger of God would be saved.