Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
13567…24

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Doc_Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Doc_Savage


    standman.. can you please clarify your statements and stop going round in circles... you're not making much sense and the brown bomber (what a screen name by the way!) seems to be making an honest attempt to answer as many of your questions as they can make sense of!

    either that or you're terrible at trolling!:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #63
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I am referring to the people involved being anti-Islamic not their arguments which are not mutually exclusive for obvious reasons. I would've thought that this would be self-evident.

    Again how would someone have anti-Islamic arguments yet not be anti-Islamic?

    That would require them not to accept their own arguments.

    You seem to be saying that you will only accept anti-Islamic arguments from people who are not anti-Islamic. That just demonstrates your bias in this area I guess.


  • Options
    #64
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Doc_Savage wrote: »
    standman.. can you please clarify your statements and stop going round in circles... you're not making much sense and the brown bomber (what a screen name by the way!) seems to be making an honest attempt to answer as many of your questions as they can make sense of!

    either that or you're terrible at trolling!:rolleyes:

    Direct me to which statements of mine are not clear and I will gladly clarify them. I thought my position was clear in my first post. I have merely been attempting to stay on topic.


  • Options
    #65
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Again how would someone have anti-Islamic arguments yet not be anti-Islamic?

    That would require them not to accept their own arguments.

    You seem to be saying that you will only accept anti-Islamic arguments from people who are not anti-Islamic. That just demonstrates your bias in this area I guess.

    Nothing to do with bias, but sling enough mud...

    I suggest you familiarise yourself with the significant differences between a genuine critic and a anti-Islamic bigot as I've already addressed your semantics.


  • Options
    #66
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    Instead of debating semantics, how about debating the actual issue?

    OK. Your point is that there should some declaration from within the vast umbrella of Islam that should declare peace.

    I personally only think that you can declare peace if you are at war. I don't consider Islam to be at war. Though I feel that there is a war being fought against Islam.

    Islamic Extremism/terrorism is a small but real part of this equation. This has been denounced by numerous Islamic authorities which I have just linked to.

    So I ask you - what else would satisfy you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So I ask you - what else would satisfy you?

    What I would like to know is why a religion of peace's holy book would contain all of those violent bits (stuff that is punishable by death etc.) in the first place?


  • Options
    #68
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    OK. Your point is that there should some declaration from within the vast umbrella of Islam that should declare peace.

    I personally only think that you can declare peace if you are at war. I don't consider Islam to be at war. Though I feel that there is a war being fought against Islam.

    Islamic Extremism/terrorism is a small but real part of this equation. This has been denounced by numerous Islamic authorities which I have just linked to.

    So I ask you - what else would satisfy you?

    My point is that in the linked debate there are Muslims who are arguing that Islam is in fact a religion of peace, and I disagree with that assertion because, 1- I think Islam is too ambiguous and open to interpretation and, 2- its core texts do not demonstrate the values of a peaceful doctrine in my opinion. Just to clarify I am not in any way stating that I believe all Muslims are terrorists/violent/intolerant/unpeaceful, I am merely stating that I don't believe one can objectively label Islam as a "religion of peace".


  • Options
    #69
    Doc_Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Doc_Savage


    Standman wrote: »
    Direct me to which statements of mine are not clear and I will gladly clarify them. I thought my position was clear in my first post. I have merely been attempting to stay on topic.

    i'll try...
    You asked some irrelevant questions about me personally. If this thread was about "Is Standman a man of peace?" then they would be relevant and I would answer them if I so choose. Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" adds absolutely nothing to the debate.

    i have no idea what you were on about here..
    The "I" refers to myself in the analogy I was making.

    i think you mis-typed the former quote and labeled it as an analogy, which you clearly didn't word it as.
    Well I never mentioned anything about burdens of proof, you brought it up.

    the next quote is from one of your first posts in the thread and that seems to mention the burdens of proof.
    If any framework is to be constructed with an aim to be one of peace, then surely its guidelines should be explicitly and unambiguously laid out with that in mind.
    Why do you keep avoiding the topic and bringing up other religions?
    you posted the above in response to brown bombers post...
    You are aware that outside the fringes of Islamic extremists that Christians and Jews are not in fact infidels?

    i think you were way out of line saying the above and a better response would have been to say "yes, but extremists and fundamentalists are part of a religion too".
    Instead of debating semantics, how about debating the actual issue?

    he brought up a point that was relative to a post you made, those semantics are actually quite important, and that was a knee jerk reaction from you.

    Actually after re-reading the thread i have a less critical view of your posts and would like to apologize for the trolling jibe!


  • Options
    #70
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Please tell me that (on reflection) that you realise how contradictory your two points below are.
    Standman wrote: »
    1- I think Islam is too ambiguous and open to interpretation and,

    2- its core texts do not demonstrate the values of a peaceful doctrine in my opinion.

    That said I do respect your overall sentiments in this post.


  • Options
    #71
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Galvasean wrote: »
    What I would like to know is why a religion of peace's holy book would contain all of those violent bits (stuff that is punishable by death etc.) in the first place?

    I don't have the answers but my basic understanding is that violence is acceptable under the Quran in self-defense only.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Doc_Savage wrote: »
    i think you mis-typed the former quote and labeled it as an analogy, which you clearly didn't word it as.

    My initial blurred understanding of that point was the the "I" was directed at me and was assuming I was a Muslim, realised his jump to conclusions and tried to backtrack.
    Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" adds absolutely nothing to the debate.

    Of course that would have been an extremely narrowminded point but I'm more than prepared to give the benefit of doubt.


  • Options
    #73
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I don't have the answers but my basic understanding is that violence is acceptable under the Quran in self-defense only.

    That's well and good. In fact I'd be inclined to strongly agree with such an ideology.
    However, surely stoning a woman to death for commiting adultery or killing someone for leaving the religion is not self defece?


  • Options
    #74
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I suggest you familiarise yourself with the significant differences between a genuine critic and a anti-Islamic bigot as I've already addressed your semantics.

    You didn't answer the question. Can someone be anti-Islmaic without you dismissing them as a bigot?

    Can you give an example of someone who is anti-Islamic but who you would consider to be a "genuine critic"?

    Or again is such thing impossible? Do you refuse to accept someone can have genuine reasons for being anti-Islamic?

    If so doesn't that just, again, highlight your own bigotry and bias?


  • Options
    #75
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You didn't answer the question. Can someone be anti-Islmaic without you dismissing them as a bigot?

    Can you give an example of someone who is anti-Islamic but who you would consider to be a "genuine critic"?

    Or again is such thing impossible? Do you refuse to accept someone can have genuine reasons for being anti-Islamic?

    If so doesn't that just, again, highlight your own bigotry and bias?

    When answering, keep in mind how you would answer if the question was 'anti-Jewish'.


  • Options
    #76
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Galvasean wrote: »
    That's well and good. In fact I'd be inclined to strongly agree with such an ideology.
    However, surely stoning a woman to death for commiting adultery or killing someone for leaving the religion is not self defece?

    No. It's not self defence it is capital punishment. Something which is not exclusive to to Islam and is beyond the scope of this debate IMO.


  • Options
    #77
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You didn't answer the question. Can someone be anti-Islmaic without you dismissing them as a bigot?

    Can you give an example of someone who is anti-Islamic but who you would consider to be a "genuine critic"?

    Or again is such thing impossible? Do you refuse to accept someone can have genuine reasons for being anti-Islamic?

    If so doesn't that just, again, highlight your own bigotry and bias?

    Aren't you getting schooled in another active thread for making a bigoted comment? Projectionism...?

    But listen, I'm not interested in your games. For the second time I've already addressed your semantic nonsense.

    An example of genuine critic of Islam would be Professor As'ad. Now please, let's move on.


  • Options
    #78
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No. It's not self defence it is capital punishment. Something which is not exclusive to to Islam and is beyond the scope of this debate IMO.

    Oh I very much think it is in the scope of this debate. If Islam condones extremely violent capital punishment disproportionate to the 'crime' committed then surely it cannot be a religion of peace.
    Please note that 'others do it too!" is not a good enough reason to gloss over this point. The Catholic Church continuously try that one when the topic of abuse comes up. It's a distractionary tactic at best.


  • Options
    #79
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No. It's not self defence it is capital punishment. Something which is not exclusive to to Islam and is beyond the scope of this debate IMO.

    In every single debate I have heard this topic come up, I have heard the same two excuses come up, "It's not just us" and "It's not relevant".


    I've not heard an actual answer to the question once.

    Why would a religion of peace condone the painful murder of a human being over what is, at the end of the day, not even considered a crime in most societies, frowned upon or not?


  • Options
    #80
    66godot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭66godot


    I think sex, and the denial of it, causes a lot of trouble to people in these various religions - Catholicism, Islam, the Puritans et al.


  • Options
    #81
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,239 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No. It's not self defence it is capital punishment. Something which is not exclusive to to Islam and is beyond the scope of this debate IMO.

    It's not beyond the scope of this debate when their religion is used as the justification of the capital punishment. And by 'capital punishment', I mean 'murder'


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Doctor DooM wrote: »
    the same two excuses come up, "It's not just us"

    You imply that I am a Muslim. Interesting...I have given not a single indication that I am. What led you to this conclusion?


  • Options
    #83
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Barrington wrote: »
    It's not beyond the scope of this debate when their religion is used as the justification of the capital punishment. And by 'capital punishment', I mean 'murder'

    Unfortunately Barrington you can't just make up definitions to suit yourself. Capital punishment does not mean murder. If capital punishment is the issue for you I suggest your turn your attention away from Islam and towards China and the US.


  • Options
    #84
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Oh I very much think it is in the scope of this debate. If Islam condones extremely violent capital punishment disproportionate to the 'crime' committed then surely it cannot be a religion of peace.
    Please note that 'others do it too!" is not a good enough reason to gloss over this point. The Catholic Church continuously try that one when the topic of abuse comes up. It's a distractionary tactic at best.

    This is just perspectivism.

    I would say that all capital punishment is violent as it leads to death. Death is the ultimate punishment, not the method used, otherwise it would be torture as a punishment. It is disproportionate to the crime committed in your opinion (and mine too) but as I said capital punishment and your and mine opinion on the crimes that justify it are beyond the scope of this debate.


  • Options
    #85
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Unfortunately Barrington you can't just make up definitions to suit yourself. Capital punishment does not mean murder. If capital punishment is the issue for you I suggest your turn your attention away from Islam and towards China and the US.

    Read: They do it too!


  • Options
    #86
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,239 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Unfortunately Barrington you can't just make up definitions to suit yourself. Capital punishment does not mean murder. If capital punishment is the issue for you I suggest your turn your attention away from Islam and towards China and the US.

    I'm not talking about all capital punishment. I'm talking about that which is not ordered by any judicial system, where people take the law into their own hands with no trial or form of justice system

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392454/Muslim-girl-Katya-Koren-19-stoned-death-beauty-contest-Ukraine.html

    Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm opposed to the death penalty in all it's forms, whether it be by stoning or lethal injection, and consider it to be a form of murder too, despite its legality.


  • Options
    #87
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This is just perspectivism.

    I would say that all capital punishment is violent as it leads to death. Death is the ultimate punishment, not the method used, otherwise it would be torture as a punishment. It is disproportionate to the crime committed in your opinion (and mine too) but as I said capital punishment and your and mine opinion on the crimes that justify it are beyond the scope of this debate.

    Oh I very much think it is in the scope of this debate. If Islam condones extremely violent capital punishment disproportionate to the 'crime' committed then surely it cannot be a religion of peace.


  • Options
    #88
    4Sheets
    Closed Accounts Posts: 613 ✭✭✭4Sheets


    Whatever islam is and whatever Muslims support I know one thing ..its dividing Europe at an astonishing rate..I never heard of Muslims until a few years back..its obvious that mankind or most of mankind are not at the stage where there is tolerance..instead there is fear..fear of being over-run in our own countries..fear of immigration.fear of civil war.

    While Islam might not be evil the division it is causing is

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdM7u1wWAj4


  • Options
    #89
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    4Sheets wrote: »
    Whatever islam is and whatever Muslims support I know one thing ..its dividing Europe at an astonishing rate..I never heard of Muslims until a few years back..its obvious that mankind or most of mankind are not at the stage where there is tolerance..instead there is fear..fear of being over-run in our own countries..fear of immigration.fear of civil war.

    While Islam might not be evil the division it is causing is

    You only heard of Muslims a few years ago??? How is it dividing Europe??

    I've edited your post below.

    ."instead there is irrational fear.. irrational fear of being over-run in our own countries.. irrational fear of immigration. irrational fear of civil war.    "

    So what your saying is that there is a fear instead of tolerance in Europe? How is that the fault of Islam?

    What drives your "fear" if you don't mind me asking?


  • Options
    #90
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Oh I very much think it is in the scope of this debate. If Islam condones extremely violent capital punishment disproportionate to the 'crime' committed then surely it cannot be a religion of peace.

    as opposed to only an iccle bit violent death penalties in other cultures? :pac:

    So if Islam has the death penalty for what it considers crimes based on YOUR SUBJECTIVE MORAL CODES the religion itself is violent because you say so?

    I disagree. There is nothing else to say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    as opposed to only an iccle bit violent death penalties in other cultures? :pac:

    So if Islam has the death penalty for what it considers crimes based on YOUR SUBJECTIVE MORAL CODES the religion itself is violent because you say so?

    I disagree. There is nothing else to say.

    So Hitler wasn't violent because his subjective moral codes made him see Jews as sub human and criminal and therefore their deaths were perfectly ok?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement