Muslime in Deutschland. Geschichte – Gegenwart – Chancen. [Schriften des Zentrums für interkulturelle Kommunikation. Bd. 1.] Heidelberg 2011.
Online unter:
http://www.zikk.eu/Ver%C3%B6ffentlichungen.html

“Der Islam ist mit rund vier Millionen Anhängern nach den beiden großen christlichen Kirchen mittlerweile die drittgrößte Religion in Deutschland, gilt aber bis heute noch zum Teil als unbekannt. Dieser Band ist der Versuch, einen Überblick über muslimisches Leben in Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart zu verschaffen und damit eine Grundlage an Informationen zu verschiedenen zentralen Themen zu bieten und ist sowohl für Kenner als auch für Laien gut geeignet.”
(aus dem Ankündigungstext)

I asked this question earlier, but have had no response from you Bloggers.
If you open a dictionary you might well find SALAM traslated into English as PEACE. But it is peace only between Muslims, not between infidels and Muslims.

Just to continue and point out what is meant by a statement or obligation made by a Muslim to a non-Muslim. Enclosing below part of an article from the internet: http://www.meforum.org/2066/war-and-peace-and-deceit-in-islam
This was presented to Congress on February 12, 2009.

I pointed out earlier the difference of greeting of Moslem by another Moslem, and a Moslem greeting an Infidel. The article below goes further, and I bring it to you as it is on the Internet.

“The standard view has been that, since in the early years of Islam, Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels and idolaters, a message of peace and coexistence was in order (sound familiar?). However, after he migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the violent and intolerant verses were “revealed,” inciting Muslims to go on the offensive — now that they were capable of doing so. According to this view, quite standard among the ulema, one can only conclude that the peaceful Meccan verses were ultimately a ruse to buy Islam time till it became sufficiently strong to implement its “true” verses which demand conquest. Or, as traditionally understood and implemented by Muslims themselves, when the latter are weak and in a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy.

A Muslim colleague of mine once made this clear during a casual, though revealing, conversation. After expounding to him all those problematic doctrines that make it impossible for Muslims to peacefully coexist with infidels — Jihad, loyalty and enmity enjoying the right and forbidding the wrong — I pointedly asked him how and why he, as a Muslim, did not uphold them. He kept prevaricating, pointing to those other, abrogated verses of peace and tolerance. Assuming he was totally oblivious of such arcane doctrines as abrogation, I (rather triumphantly) began explaining to him the distinction between Meccan (tolerant) and Medinan (intolerant) verses, and how the latter abrogate the former. He simply smiled, saying, “I know; but I’m currently living in Mecca” — that is, like his weak and outnumbered prophet living among an infidel majority in Mecca, he too, for survival’s sake, felt compelled to preach peace, tolerance, and coexistence to the infidel majority of America.”

“The fact that Islam legitimizes deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; as the saying goes, all’s fair in love and war. Moreover, non-Muslim thinkers and philosophers, such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, all justified deceit in war. The crucial difference, however, is that, according to all four recognized schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity — until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39). In its entry on jihad, the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam simply states:
The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.

The obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam’s dichotomized worldview that pits Dar al-Islam (the “realm of submission,” i.e., the Islamic world), against Dar al-Harb (the “realm of war,” i.e., the non-Islamic world) until the former subsumes the latter. Internationally renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) articulates this division thusly: “In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups [specifically Christianity and Judaism] did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

“This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca, ten years is, theoretically, the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels. Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years (by citing a Quraish infraction), the sole function of the “peace treaty” (or hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before going on the offensive once more.

After negotiating a peace treaty criticized by Muslims as conceding too much to Israel, former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat, speaking to Muslims in a mosque and off the record, justified his actions by saying, “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.” In other words, like his prophet, the “moderate” Arafat was giving his word only to annul it once “something else better” came along — that is, once Palestinians became strong enough to renew the offensive.
Most recently, a new Islamic group associated with Hamas called Jaysh al-Umma (Islam’s army) stated clearly, “Muslims all over the world are obliged to fight the Israelis and the infidels until only Islam rules the earth.” Realizing their slip, they quickly clarified: “We say that the world will not live in peace as long as the blood of Muslims continues to be shed.”
If Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty, amiability, even affection to the infidel, simply to further their war efforts — what does one make of any Muslim overtures of peace, tolerance, or dialogue?

If any nation closely follows Sharia — including, but not limited to, the division of the world into two perpetually warring halves, Islam and infidelity — it is Saudi Arabia, a.k.a. America’s “friend.” According to Sharia, for instance, the Saudis will not allow the construction of a single church or synagogue on their land; Bibles are banned and burned; Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed; Muslim converts to Christianity are put to death.”

I understand that “Salam” is only between Muslims. I do not think that according to Islam there can be “Salam” between a Moslem and a Gentile or a Jew. Therefore “Salam” is not Peace as meant in the other languages. A moslem will not greet you (the non-beliver) with “Salam”, as against “Grüß Gott” or “Shalom” which are used to greet anyone.

If I am correct, then “Salam” has no place here.

I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

Here are just a few examples of the greeting “Salam” or “Salaam”:

If a non-Muslim greets a Muslim by saying ‘Salaam’ he will not be rewarded in the Hereafter for this act. If a disbeliever greets you with Salaam, then you should limit your reply to saying: “Wa ‘Alaykum” and not the full response of Salaam.
Allaah Knows best.

Similarly it is not permissible to initiate a greeting such as Ahlan wa sahlan (welcome) and the like, because that is a kind of honouring them. But if they say something like that to us, then we should say something similar to them, because the greeting should be returned in like manner and each person should be given his due. It is well known that the Muslims are higher in status before Allaah, so they should not humiliate themselves in front of non-Muslims by greeting them first.

In a program on Al-Jazeera Channel, Al-Shari’ah Wal-Hayah (Islamic Law and Life), dated Sunday May 9th 1999, Shaikh (scholar) Yusuf Al-Qaradawi noted that the concept of Dar Al-Harb (Abode of War) was introduced in the Fiqh Hanafi. Al-Imam (the legislator and scholar) Abu Hanifa divided the Muslim role into two categories: Dar Al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar Al-Harb (Abode of War). He would refer to any non-Muslim domain as Dar Al-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief) or Dar Al-Harb even if there is no current war between them and the Muslims.

For much of Islamic history, the preferred term used to describe non-Islamic societies has been dar al-Harb, emphasizing various Islamic countries’ aspirations to conquer such territories and render them part of dar al-Islam.

Und dass solche Social-Engineering-Versuche noch unter dem Deckmantel von “Dialog” erfolgen… Man fragt sich, ob Sprache hier überhaupt noch zu irgendwas taugt oder inzwischen schon völlig missbraucht wird.

Und dennoch trifft man doch gerade bei muslimischen Meinungsäußerungen auf eben solche Differenzierungen, dass der muslimische G’tt “ALLAH”(Allah nicht als simples, übersetzbares arabisches Wort, sondern als unumstößliches Eigenwort) nicht mit “G’tt” gleichzusetzen ist.
Das Problem scheint also viel mehr darin zu liegen, dass gerade Muslime mit zwei eigentlich identischen Begriffen unterschiedliche Konzepte verbinden, und es ihnen wichtig ist, diese zu betonen, um sich tatsächlich, wie Yoav es erwähnte, von den Schriftverfälschern abzugrenzen.
Hand auf’s Herz: Nahezu alles, was man im Koran liest, findet man nach nur wenig intensiver Suche auch irgendwo in der hebräischen Bibel. Inhaltlich hat Mohammed eigentlich kaum etwas neues gebracht und die einzige Legitimation des Korans besteht daher in dem Vorwurf und der Annahme, dass die vorangegangene Schrift, die Bibel, verfälscht sei. Das bringt ein Toleranzdefizit bei Koran-Gläubigen automatisch mit sich – und dies sage ich aus eigener Erfahrung im jüdisch-muslimisch-christlichen Dialog(täglich!).
Die Differenzierung an sich ist nicht schlecht. Schlecht und giftig wird sie, wenn man damit a priori eine Wertigkeit verbindet, was nach meiner Erfahrung gerade bei Muslimen und evangelikalen Christen der Fall ist.

Hussein: Kannst du – also wirklich du, als Privatperson und Zufallsmuslim – akzeptieren, dass es auf Erden Menschen gibt, die sich als gläubig verstehen und dennoch ihren Glauben – aus welchen Gründen auch immer – von der durch Muslime propagierte Gottheit distanzieren? Oder haben diese Menschen aus deiner Sicht – ganz egal, was sie meinen – notwendigerweise mit jener Gottheit zu tun, die (allgemein gesehen) Muslime anbeten, also mit einem einzig bestehenden Allah/Gott?

Es geht hier notabene nicht um Metaphysik, sondern um Phänomenologie. Ich frage dich also nicht, ob es in deiner persönlichen Glaubenswelt noch Gottheiten gibt außer “Allah/Gott” (wahrscheinlich nicht), sondern, ob du die Glaubensbekenntnisse anderer Menschen auch dann ernst nehmen kannst, wenn sie deinem persönlichen Bild des “wahren” Gottes widersprechen.

Die meisten Muslime (wenn auch nicht alle), die ich kenne, würden hier entweder sagen: “Sie sind Gläubige, weil sie Gott/Allah anbeten (manchmal mit der Fotsetzung: ….aber besser werden sie Muslime)” oder “Da sie nicht Gott/Allah anbeten, sind sie eigentlich Ungläubige”. Einmal habe ich auch eine kennen gelernt, die mir gesagt hat (kein genaues Zitat): “Auch wenn sie sich bewusst von Allah/Gott distanzieren, sind sie trotzdem Gläubige”, aber sie war keine richtige Gläubige mehr, d.h. damals schon ziemlich vom Islam abgefallen.

Nicht, dass du im Namen der Muslime oder “des Islam” sprechen könntest; ich möchte vielmehr gerne wissen, wie du als Hussein Hamdan ganz persönlich an diese Problematik herangehst.

Und bei etwas vorsichtiger, weniger emotionaler Wortauswahl hättest du dich doch auch in ernster Weise mit den obigen Fragen auseinandersetzen können.

Diese ganze weitschweifige Argumentation deinerseits lebt doch davon, aus einem einzigen Halbsatz einen prinzipiellen, freilich böswillig verschleierten Hegemonie-Anspruch abzuleiten – das aber ist, kurz gesagt, eine keineswegs zwingende Über-Interpretation deinerseits.
Insofern nicht bös sein, wenn ich dich hier weiter monologisieren lasse…