''Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

swampgas

ed2hands wrote: »

It's quite simple to me really. Islamic groups who kill in the name of Islam are subverting and using the religion for their own ends.

The thing is, the Qur'an, a bit like the Bible, contains plenty of usable material for anyone hell bent on being violent.

So even if most Muslims are peaceful, that says more about them than about the intrinsic nature of their religion.

Islam *can* be used to justify violence, just like Christianity was in the past (remember the Crusades?). Who gets to judge whether a particular use of Islam or Christianity is subversion or not?

ed2hands

swampgas wrote: »

The thing is, the Qur'an, a bit like the Bible, contains plenty of usable material for anyone hell bent on being violent.

So even if most Muslims are peaceful, that says more about them than about the intrinsic nature of their religion.

Islam *can* be used to justify violence, just like Christianity was in the past (remember the Crusades?). Who gets to judge whether a particular use of Islam or Christianity is subversion or not?

Am out of my depth here to be honest so am listening and learning.
Would rather leave it to the heavyweights like Wiggs and co. to flesh it out properly and they have done.

Yes it's true from what i know, that the Qur'an and Bible contain usable material. "Usable" being the operative word. "An eye for an eye.." etc
And it certainly is used and subverted to go to war, just as many other things are used.

I would surmise though that when taken as a whole, those two books' themes and subject matter are based on leading a peaceful existence.
Consequently, the vast majority of people that live their lives according to those books' values at least try to lead peaceful lives.

Anything and everything can be used to justify violence: race, colour, creed, etc etc.

Wibbs

swampgas wrote: »

So even if most Muslims are peaceful, that says more about them than about the intrinsic nature of their religion.

Indeed I've far more faith in human beings than I have faith in faith.

Islam *can* be used to justify violence, just like Christianity was in the past (remember the Crusades?).

Arguably much more so. As I pointed out earlier in this thread the founder of Islam was himself violent in the prosecution of the growth of his faith. As were his followers, both when he was alive and following. Under his direct command, raids were undertaken, booty was "accumulated", people were killed, or enslaved and in one example around a thousand men were lined up and decapitated and their wives and children were sold into slavery. Compare and contrast with the lad from 1 Messiah Grove Galilee. Or the lad from 1 Bodhi tree Drive India. Bit of a diff there.

swampgas

ed2hands wrote: »

Am out of my depth here to be honest so am listening and learning. Would rather leave it to the heavyweights like Wiggs and co. to flesh it out properly and they have done.

That's pretty honest of you - but don't underestimate yourself either

I would surmise though that when taken as a whole, those two books' themes and subject matter are based on leading a peaceful existence.
Consequently, the vast majority of people that live their lives according to those books' values at least try to lead peaceful lives.

Me, I'd surmise that people tend to be peaceful and decent enough, most of the time. Whatever religious environment they grow up and live can twist their natural inclinations though.

I really don't think you can gloss over all the nasty stuff in the various Holy Books by taking those books as a whole though. The nasty stuff is still nasty.

Brown Bomber

biko wrote: »

"Islam is a threat to Canada", Prime minister Stephen Harper says

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4LJ-WrQSBI

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=74297595

Harper is a mouth for hire. Rub a few shiney penneys in his face and he will say whatever you want him to.

Case in point,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8YwJC_nBgw

Brown Bomber

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed I've far more faith in human beings than I have faith in faith.

Arguably much more so. As I pointed out earlier in this thread the founder of Islam was himself violent in the prosecution of the growth of his faith. As were his followers, both when he was alive and following. Under his direct command, raids were undertaken, booty was "accumulated", people were killed, or enslaved and in one example around a thousand men were lined up and decapitated and their wives and children were sold into slavery. Compare and contrast with the lad from 1 Messiah Grove Galilee. Or the lad from 1 Bodhi tree Drive India. Bit of a diff there.

To be fair Moses and the Israelites on the way to Canaan (Palestine) massacred and ethnically cleansed the locals during the exodus

New International Version (©1984)
Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Deuteronomy 3:3-7

New International Version (NIV)

3 So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyedURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+3%3A3-7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-4982a"]a[/URL them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroyingURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+3%3A3-7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-4982b"]b[/URL every city—men, women and children. 7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

What KPIs would you use to rate a modern civilisation? Sam has used a couple of fairly reasonable indicators, I think.

MrP

Well I didn't ask him about civilisations; I asked him if he considered the majority of Muslims as civilised. I'd view everyone as civilised until proven to a high degree otherwise.

And but his whole position is based on biased false premises.

I'll ask you this because no one else seems interested in tackling him on his ignorant points except for Ed.

Do you think that this claim made by Sam in proven true by his "proof" or is there somthing wrong?
This is his claim

In Afghanistan it is routine for women to be gang raped in Tribal justice

This is his proof

http://www.afghanlord.org/2010/05/honor-gang-rape.html You can check up specific cases if you want. So yes, I was right again, and yes I did have evidence for my opinion.

There is a couple pf things to ignore for the sake of argument straight away a- it's a supposed case of rape against men, not women. b - the source is a think-tank linked to the arms industry who profit from war c - the link to original new story is dead and d - Afganistan news channels are notoriously unreliable.

That aside, if we accept that it happened as it may well have, it is delusional to consider yourself "right again" by claiming something is "routine" and by giving a solitary example.

It is no more routine than 61-year-olds called Kevin in Lancashire getting struck by lightining while holding a garden umbrella.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3740125/Sink-saves-man-struck-by-lightning.html

Wibbs

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To be fair Moses and the Israelites on the way to Canaan (Palestine) massacred and ethnically cleansed the locals during the exodus

Yes the good old old testament. Chock full of murderous gits, not least of which the god of the old testament. That's how they sold the idea of the crusades and it's how your nuttier right wing christians do similar in times of war today, however if they actually followed that "what would Jesus do" line they're so fond off, it would be a very different answer. If one compares the new testament to the Quran you're going to be reading a very long time before the founder of the faith suggests violence towards non believers, or the founder of the faith is violent himself. Much less openly prosecutes wars and killings and enslavement. The faith itself was born of blood as much as religious fervour.

Like I said earlier in this thread;

how would religious schools radicalise people? Would a Buddhist religious school make for militant nutters as easily? I seriously doubt BB. Like I said the founder of the faith himself was by turns violent and warlike. The guy was the head of a religious movement that required force of arms. He killed people and had people killed in the name of his Allah. Very very few religious founders came close to him on that score with the exception of some Old testament figures.

You can argue back and forth all day, but the simple fact remains Islam is an "old testament" faith, heavy on the fighting, killing and smiting. Even compared to the old testament it's heavier on the fighting. They've had no "new testament", nor a reformation. Nor can they easily have one, if at all. By it's very nature it's pickled and mired in 7th century nomadic Arab thinking and has lots of self protection of that thinking built in. So the debate on is Islam a religion of peace has to go to the source material. This however doesn't mean Muslims individually are non peaceful, but it certainly doesn't help.

swampgas

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes the good old old testament. Chock full of murderous gits, not least of which the god of the old testament. That's how they sold the idea of the crusades and it's how your nuttier right wing christians do similar in times of war today, however if they actually followed that "what would Jesus do" line they're so fond off, it would be a very different answer. If one compares the new testament to the Quran you're going to be reading a very long time before the founder of the faith suggests violence towards non believers, or the founder of the faith is violent himself. Much less openly prosecutes wars and killings and enslavement. The faith itself was born of blood as much as religious fervour.

Like I said earlier in this thread;


You can argue back and forth all day, but the simple fact remains Islam is an "old testament" faith, heavy on the fighting, killing and smiting. Even compared to the old testament it's heavier on the fighting. They've had no "new testament", nor a reformation. Nor can they easily have one, if at all. By it's very nature it's pickled and mired in 7th century nomadic Arab thinking and has lots of self protection of that thinking built in. So the debate on is Islam a religion of peace has to go to the source material. This however doesn't mean Muslims individually are non peaceful, but it certainly doesn't help.

Thanks for the detailed analysis Wibbs, the fact that Islam is more OT than NT is an interesting observation. I'm re-adjusting my attitude to Islam in a more ... cautious direction.

Mistress 69

Let me stress I am not anti Islamic or anti anything for that matter but as the old song says ''Every Picture Tells a Story'' ... taken from the ever changing Irish Times homepage an hour or so ago.


Masked children wearing fake suicide belts and carrying copies of the Koran march at the Burj al-Barajneh refugee camp in Beirut to mark the 24th anniversary of the foundation of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement. Photograph: Sharif Karim/Reuters

Undergod

Any kind of indoctrination of children that way is awful: but it's not an exclusively islamic problem.

ed2hands

correctamundo

MagicMarker

Undergod wrote: »

Any kind of indoctrination of children that way is awful: but it's not an exclusively islamic problem.

It's a religion problem.

robindch

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Let me stress I am not anti Islamic or anti anything for that matter

There's a difference that many people don't quite get between being anti an idea, and being anti the people who believe the idea, or people who enact its consequences.

Religion tends to play upon this confusion quite neatly. So, for example, it's quite difficult for people to criticize the expansionist policies of Israel (disliking an idea) without also being called anti-Semetic (disliking the holders of the idea).

I think it would be fair to say that most people here are anti-catholicism, anti-islam and anti-orthodox-judaism, without being anti-catholic, anti-islamic or anti-semitic. Though as I've said, the distinction will often be lost upon the religious. Often, it seems, intentionally lost, especially by the more politically astute who will understand how contrived disgust can be used to silence opposition.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

There's a difference that many people don't quite get between being anti an idea, and being anti the people who believe the idea, or people who enact its consequences.

Religion tends to prey upon this confusion quite neatly. So, for example, it's quite difficult for people to criticize the expansionist policies of Israel (disliking an idea) without also being called anti-Semetic (disliking the holders of the idea).

I think it would be fair to say that most people here are anti-catholicism, anti-islam and anti-orthodox-judaism, without being anti-catholic, anti-islamic or anti-semitic. Though as I've said, the distinction will often be lost upon the religious. Often, it seems, intentionally lost, especially by the more politically astute who will understand how contrived disgust can be used to silence opposition.

fyp

bnt

Didn't we have this discussion before? I came away from that one with a simple conclusion: Islam can be a religion of peace ... if everyone is a Muslim. It can't be truly peaceful in a world containing other religions, or no religion. If Islam ever conquers the world, then it will be a religion of peace. Or else. :mad:

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

fyp

robindch

bnt wrote: »

If Islam ever conquers the world, then it will be a religion of peace.

It's more likely that most religions, when there's no more outfighting to do, will turn to infighting.

tfitzgerald

I think true islam is a religion of peace. But like most religions i think it has being corrupted by hardliners you know the crowd that call for a jihad at the drop of a hat or sombody drawing a cartoon . These crowd are giving the pure peaceful religion a bad name . IMHO

Undergod

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's a religion problem.

Yes, but only among other things. It's a problem of any ideology that encourages any kind of thinking other than evaluation of the evidence.

ed2hands

Undergod wrote: »

Yes, but only among other things. It's a problem of any ideology that encourages any kind of thinking other than evaluation of the evidence.

I've evaluated the evidence and decided that Islam is a religion of peace.

Undergod

ed2hands wrote: »

I've evaluated the evidence and decided that Islam is a religion of peace.

Awesome!

Javelin77

It's like god is playing chess with the devil , god moves mohammad the devil moves quraish the pagans , christians , jews ....but Not the hindus cos they were far away from the land of the abrahamic game of prophets and gods.


So god sends mohammad to negate all the religions in this area , judaism , christianity and the pagans . None of them said hey ur welcome and thx for introducing the truth , of course not they told him get out of mecca . And here when mohammad can use his divine motivational verses at the right moment cos he has the right to claim back what they took from him and his followers using god's help , The message of islam doesn't make sense when it claims it's the religion of peace , cos mohammad kept insulting everybody's beliefs and when they got fed up with him they kicked him out and that's what he was waiting for . An excuse to raid them!

Man what about the hindus ? They're no better than the pagans! Well ok they are a bit better cos they're not 100% polytheists , they're somehow monotheistic polytheists ..... but not a single verse about them in the whole quran ? Although they were more than 50% of earth population back then!

God sends plenty of verses to justify mohamad's raids , but only one vague verse regarding jesus' crucifixion ! And none regarding the polytheist hindus !

Liamario

"True Islam"
I don't understand this. Surely all religions are open to interpretation. If you look at christianity, there are countless deviations, permutations and interpretaions. Who's to say which one is correct!
Theists pick and choose the parts of the religion they like and ignore the rest. Where they can't ignore the rest, they create a new religion.

I think it's unfair to say that one interpretation if Islam is better or more correct than another. In the end, it's all fairy tales.

Brown Bomber

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes I can. Well there are worrying trends in this. In 2010 in Norway, all non domestic rape and sexual assaults reported were by Muslim men on Norwegian women.
From Norwegian TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_rHFKRwv5Y

I just wanted to put this claim to bed.
http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/debunked-zionist-and-islamophobic-libel-rape-epidemic-muslims-norway
Debunked: the Zionist and Islamophobic libel of a "rape epidemic" by Muslims in Norway

MagicMarker

Christ not this again.

muppeteer

I wouldn't really call it debunked when the data still stands. It might add some clarification, but the major claim still stands, that of all assault type rape was by identified perperatrators of middle-eastern or aisan origin.

And the blogger uses zionist paranoia language far, far too much to lend himself much credability outside the tinfoil hat brigade.:rolleyes:

old hippy

Most religions have peace at the core. It's the individual agendas, cultisms and angry males that tend to fck it up, sadly.

Stercus Accidit

old hippy wrote: »

Most religions have peace at the core. It's the individual agendas, cultisms and angry males that tend to fck it up, sadly.

Most religions has self propagation and power grabbing at their cores, otherwise they wouldn't continue to exist and grow or give people motivation to facilitate that. There are plenty of calls to violence in the Quran, is that not at it's 'core'?

old hippy

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Most religions has self propagation and power grabbing at their cores, otherwise they wouldn't continue to exist and grow or give people motivation to facilitate that. There are plenty of calls to violence in the Quran, is that not at it's 'core'?

There's plenty of calls for violence and smighting and vengeance in the bible as well but people tend to focus on the good things, oddly