Is Islam violent and intolerant?

Doesn't it demonstrates excessive cruelty on the part of Muhammad?

"Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")"

Regardless of whether you feel that the punishment was "cruel", what does this hadith prove about Islam's "inherent violence"?   The individuals who were punished were murderers, were they not?  Are you against the death penalty?  If you find this hadith to be "worrying" then surely you also find the US Justice System "worrying" as well, since it too implements the death penalty, although in a different way. 

The following Sura worries me as it appears to justify raping slaves:-

33:50 - English - English / Yusuf Ali

Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)

33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful."

The issue of concubines has drawn much fire from Islamophobes.  First of all, it is important to understand when it was lawful for Muslims to take concubines.  The answer is only during a war, which can only be fought when Muslims are attacked first.  Second, it is interesting that elsewhere in the Quran, Allah (swt) says the following:

By the way, Rezz, are you a Christian?  The reason I ask is because if you are, you certainly that the Hebrew prophets also had concubines (by the hundreds).  Do you find that "worrying" as well?

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Angela refuted your concerns with this verse.  The question now is since the book you read mentioned this verse as "cause for concern", did it present this verse in its proper context?  In other words, did it present the verse along with verses 1-4 and verses 6-7, or just by itself?  In its proper context, the verse does not call for a "holy war" against the "infidels", rather it is referring to a specific group of people:

"1 A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

2 Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.

3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

7 How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous." (At-Tauba, v.1-7)

In addition, I also would like to ask you whether the book you read mentioned the historical context of these verses.  Does it mention when the verse were revealed?  If not, let me enlighten you, as the source you rely on fails to do so.  These verses were revealed roughly 2 years after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, in which the Muslims signed a peace treaty with the pagans of Mecca, with whom they had been in a state of war for a few years.  The treaty called for a ten year truce, but it was broken when a tribe allied to the Meccans attacked and murdered several people from a tribe allied to the Muslims.  This was a violation of the treaty, and thus, the Muslims declared it null and void and prepared for an attack on its enemies.  They marched on Mecca with 10,000 men and entered the city without a fight.  Per Arab custom, it was expected that they would slaughter all inhabitants in the city, women and children included.  But, Muhammad (pbuh), the man the pagans had tormented for over 20 years, declared all people safe (except for a few war criminals) and ordered his forces to leave all people of Mecca unharmed.  Does the book you read mention this little fact? 

"At-Tauba (The Repentance)

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

Where is the command to forcefully convert people?  This verse was revealed after the defeat of the pagans and refers specifically to the Byzantine Empire, which had attacked a Muslim force at the Battle of Mutah.  A Byzantine loyalist had murdered a Muslim emmissary, so Muhammad (pbuh) dispatched a 3,000-strong force to punish the murderers.  Instead, they were ambushed by a much larger Byzantine force.  Why didn't the Byzantines punish the murderers?  It was clear that they were not interested in peace.  So, after the Muslims had secured Arabia, they could now concentrate on the Byzantine Empire, which had by its actions, declared war on the Muslim Ummah.  Notice that in the verse, there is no command to "convert the infidels or put them to the sword". 

Salaam Rezz,

Welcome to the forum. I cannot answer these questions from a Quranic point of view.  But I wanted to welcome you.

just curious, do you believe in "God," or Allah? Do you believe in a divine creator? Because many atheists thing Allah is cruel, look at all of the suffering in the world, how can there be a "good" God? They ask is not God "cruel"? I'd be curious as to what your views are..

again welcome  

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

"He ordered that their hands and feet cut off and nails were driven in their eyes and they were cast out into al-Harra'. They asked for water but none was given to them until they died." [thanks rami for this translation]

This Hadith goes way beyond the death penalty rami. It goes way beyond being simply "cruel".

I didnt mention the death penalty , dont confuse posts.

What this is an indication of is ignorance of the worst kind , you having been "born" a muslim should know better than to take ahadith out of context, you should also know better than people who know nothing about islam that it is not permissible for a muslim to read a hadith and take any ruling from it. Ahadith are accounts which are taken out of context for the sake of brevity without exception.

More ignorant is your judging an entire religion based on one hadith, what rational person would judge volumes upon volumes of historical eyewitness accounts based upon one narration and conclude upon the character of someone.

English scholarship will not stand for this belligerent analysis.

Lets discuss cruelty, is there punishment worse than what Allah himself will do to them in Hell?

Are you so attached to life that you think death is a punishment itself, the tortures of hell wont even compare to what they went through before death so are you going to accuse Allah of cruelty also?

Is there punishment more cruel than being stoned to death for adultery, as Allah himself commanded?

Would you prefer being stoned to death, going through what those murderers went through before death or what Allah will do to you in Hell...You have a choice to make Decide, there is no other option.

It is a Muslim belief that if a person is punished for something in this life Allah will not punish them for it in the next life, this is why people are stoned to death, the first women to go through this in Islam went up to the prophet himself on three separate occasions and confessed her sin to him, he turned her away three times, so Question now becomes what reason is there for this specific and uncommon punishment that these criminals went through.

Any thinking person would consider it torture, no less, of the most vile and vicious kind.

Maybe you should keep thinking about something called mental conditioning and cultural conformity, what you think is right and wrong are what you made up for your self or what your society decided for you.

You are not an Original thinker.

I consider being electricuted to death torture but the western world calls it punishment so what is the difference.

rami, it is telling that when you say "this was a punishment for what they did to the shepherd,"...............After all, couldn't that sense of right and wrong be from god in the first place?

My point is that if the Hadith is true, and Muhammad did in truth order such gratuitous and brutal treatment of another human beings, (even if they were murderers), then how can he be considered to represent an ideology of "peace, mercy, and forgiveness"?

Furthermore, to cause death in such a painful and drawn-out way represents, to me, a particularly 'godless' act. If Muhammad believed in god then surely he would trust that god to punish the murderers after they were quickly put to death. Why prolong their killing in such a callous and sadistic way?

How blind an argument, you are actually accusing him of NOT believing in God??

This is the sum of your thoughts?

Callus and sadistic are conclusions made upon a persons character all you have is one hadith being put forth against a mountain of other accounts which say otherwise and you rationally choose to take the one single hadith.....what conclusions can i draw from this about your state of mind?

If the Hadith is true then how could its example possibly be followed by 'good' Muslims?

As you imply there are no "good" muslims.

How can it be followed? it is not since neither you nor i know much about this hadith to be able to conclude logically upon its significance.

Surely, a 'good' Muslim would find it difficuilt to believe that the Muhammad they revered could possibly sanction such vindictiveness.

Yes i do find it hard to believe this is all there is to know about the circumstances and the intentions behind the actions which is why i reserve judgment on this matter especially in light of all other accounts about the Prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam].