It’s history and current events flatly say "no."
Islam’s religious intolerance starts from it’s inception, and continues to this day, not because of fanatics who pervert its teachings, but because its foundational teachings are violent, racist, and produce a culture of oppression and control through fear, not of God, but of mortal violence from other "believers."
The existence of moderate, peace loving Muslims is not a testimony to Islam, but to the general ignorance of Islam’s teachings among casual adherents, and to the natural tendency of healthy people to shy away from Islam’s harsh and inhuman teachings.
Islam is currently spreading it’s cancerous ideas throughout the free west, especially in Europe’s agnostic and atheistic spiritual vacuum, because it can hide behind the extreme liberal idea of "tolerance," which attacks anyone who is trying to exercise discernment, attempting to expose the misanthropic goals and ideas inherent in Islam.
While efforts to reform Islam may help us fight off Islam’s violent tendencies, ultimately, I do not think that Islam can be fixed by liberalization or modernization because, unlike Christianity, whose Reformation included a return to first principles, the first principles of Islam will always lead back to what we currently call "radical Islam." Google for something like "radical Christianity", by comparison, and you’ll find clarion calls, not to jihad, but to service, mercy, healing, and doing what Jesus did. (and please don’t bring up The Crusades until you’ve read The Real History of the Crusades)
Doing what Muhammed did? Jihad. No amount of pruning Islam to make it look like a benign tree will make it so – it is rotten at the root, that is, in it’s foundational teachings. Sure, there are some nice gentle truths in the Koran. But let’s not decieve ourselves by taking the exceptions as the rule, rather than taking the teachings as a whole. The reason Islam is producing bad fruit is not because of a few bad apples, but because it is a bad tree.
Just like the mistaken idea that the values of a culture are sacrosanct and should not be challenged, tolerists (to coin a word) think it unfair to attack the foundational teachings of Islam merely because they are religious and belong to a group other than ourselves.
While we should be open-minded and kind to other people, their ideas are fair game for intellectual and moral challenge. To allow Islam to continue unchallenged in the public arena with the excuse that "it’s just fanatics who are twisting Islam’s teachings" is foolhardy, if not cowardly. Read Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld’s address to the UN in frontpagemag.com’s Islam’s Religious Intolerance and think twice before excusing Islam.
Unless those – still the majority of the world – who do not adhere to such dogma, take action to stop this aggression, our future is in jeopardy.
Hi. yes concerning the article I would like to as a muslim correct some things which have been utterly misunderstood.
Generally speaking, if you take all the religions in the world, do they teach violence?
Forget our religion but just look at its name, "Islam", which means "peace".
I would like to quote a maxim of the Holy Prophet of Islam (may god shower his blessings on him and his holy progeny) where he addressess the muslims (during his time):
"You can be a Human being without being a muslim but you cannot be a muslim without being a Human being (first)".
What does this Maxim tell you. Lets take it into consideration. What are the rights of a human being?
The right to live, the right to all metabolic processess, love, security of property, etc.
Now tell me unbiasedly whether the violations of human rights today (and since the first human being) were meted out by a particular race, religion, creed or simply by anyone at random?
By qouting the Maxim, it simply draws a line so thick (you could trip over it!) which differentiates between being humane and in-humane (forget being muslim and inhumane).
So now even if you see a ao called 'muslim' by name who terrorizes, he is not even human, forget muslim. And anyone for that matter.
So even if a person calls himself a muslim but doesnt even recognise basic human rights is undoubtedly a hypocrite. And finally my message to my readers is that do not devalue the name of Islam (or any religion for that matter) by a few misplaced blood thirsty monsters who wish nothing but chaos. I pray to God that HE should guide us all to the straight path unto Him.
Thanking you.
But Mohammed, how do you square that scripture with the violent ones also in the Koran? My understanding is that Muslim scholars follow this rule – "the later scriptures override the earlier." It that is so, then the nice gentle scriptures you quote are overruled by those like:
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9:73)
"Those who reject Faith fight in the cause of Evil. So fight ye against the friends of Satan." (Sura 4:76)
"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)." (Sura 9:5)
Also, look at the Muslim countries around the world – they are some of the most oppressive human-rights violators. There are fewer exceptions to this rule thatn the other way around.
To Seeker:
First of all, there is no racism in Islam. You are the first time that I ever heard saying that. Prophet Muhammad (saw) gave Billal, a black African, a honorable position, that he was the first person and best to say Call of Prayer (azzan). The Prophet even had a dream that Billal went to heaven before him. Read Bibliography of Melcolm X, see there is no racism. According to Islam, the best person is the person who has the most faith, doesn't matter who or what the person is.
Seond of all, Islam is not controll by fear from other believers through violence. This is a ridiculous statement. So all the Muslims that live in the West, indivially and isolated, also fear of violence?
Third of all, read a real magazine, not some bias article written by far-right extremists that you based your information on (frontpagemag.com). I can write my own article and call it the "Washington Magazine", would you take all those information presented in the magazine as fact?
Seeker wrote: ""My understanding is that Muslim scholars follow this rule – "the later scriptures override the earlier.""
Wrong, this claim is made by anti-islamic people. There is no Muslims that believe it. Quran doesn't contain any contradiction, or half truth. Whole Quran is true. This is how Quran works, one verse might to say to kill the infidels, then another verse in another section will say when to kill the infidel, then another verse half way across might explain "why". All those statement are correct. Beauty of Quran is that it explain itself. Those you quoted is correct only with combined with other verse, which says fight only defending your faith.