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
24567…24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Uh, how did you get "just Islam" from that post. :confused::confused::confused:

    This part
    If Islam is truly a "religion of peace", then why is it so easy for so many people to use it's texts and teachings as justifications for violence and persecution?


  • Options
    #33
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Because I read the unsupported statement. Didn't you?

    Really? Yes the statement was unsupported, but if an Islamic Scholar made a statement like that just because of their position you'd accept it? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's very poor form, no matter the person arguments from authority and appeals to authority are simply not a good way to communicate. Instead of attempt a character assassination of sorts, you could have simply asked the poster to elaborate on their position and back up their point with examples.


  • Options
    #34
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This part

    So from "If Islam" you got that those two words mean "I the poster am also hereby excluding Christianity and Judaism from the same criticism"?:confused::confused:


  • Options
    #35
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This part

    Talking about Islam on a thread about a debate about Islam, the nerve!


  • Options
    #36
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Really? Yes the statement was unsupported, but if an Islamic Scholar made a statement like that just because of their position you'd accept it? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's very poor form, no matter the person arguments from authority and appeals to authority are simply not a good way to communicate. Instead of attempt a character assassination of sorts, you could have simply asked the poster to elaborate on their position and back up their point with examples.

    Accept? No. Respect. Yes. And to the poster who made the point, it's not that I don't respect your opinion.

    And how many examples would suffice to abley demonstrate that "Islam, like Christianity and all other religions, are usually led by people with non altruistic aims"?

    10's of thousands? As a guess I'd say that that's conservative.

    You consider pointing out that a baseless accusation rooted in ignorance is a baseless accusation rooted in ignorance is somehow"character assasination"? I have no idea how...

    Are we agreed that it was an apparent baseless accusation? If so, what are we arguing about?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why just Islam? Why not Christianity and Judaism too? It's sacred texts can be equally bastardised to pursue an agenda.

    Way to avoid answering the question!


  • Options
    #38
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    Way to avoid answering the question!

    Okay, apologies. The answer is simple. These sacred texts are ancíent documents which are considered divinely inspired to it's adherents. The word of God should not be subject to the tinkering of man. This irreversible nature of the texts along with the ambiguous nature of the texts and moral relativism between now and then creates moral difficulties in today's world.


  • Options
    #39
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Malty_T wrote: »
    So from "If Islam" you got that those two words mean "I the poster am also hereby excluding Christianity and Judaism from the same criticism"?:confused::confused:

    Well no. Which is why I asked two clarifying questions.


  • Options
    #40
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Focusing on one religion does not mean others aren't subject (or not) to the same flaws.

    But this thread/debate is not about Christianity and Judaism, so let's stay on topic.


  • Options
    #41
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Okay, apologies. The answer is simple. These sacred texts are ancíent documents which are considered divinely inspired to it's adherents. The word of God should not be subject to the tinkering of man. This irreversible nature of the texts along with the ambiguous nature of the texts and moral relativism between now and then creates moral difficulties in today's world.

    Which kind of supports my point which was if a religion is put forward as one of peace, then it's guidelines for the pursuit of said peace should be unambiguously and explicitly laid out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    Which kind of supports my point which was if a religion is put forward as one of peace, then it's guidelines for the pursuit of said peace should be unambiguously and explicitly laid out.

    And why should the burden of proof be on Islam to prove that it's peaceful? Are you a man/woman of peace? If so, have you codified guidelines to prove this to others?


  • Options
    #43
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why just Islam? Why not Christianity and Judaism too? It's sacred texts can be equally bastardised to pursue an agenda.

    Not really. The fact is, in Islam, pretty much any act is permissible if it furthers Islam and/or is committed against infidels. The conduct of Muhammad in his lifetime was monstrous even by the standards of the day, but everything was justified because Allah was his BFF.


  • Options
    #44
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    goose2005 wrote: »
    Not really. The fact is, in Islam, pretty much any act is permissible if it furthers Islam and/or is committed against infidels.
    And this is another gross generalisation.

    So I'll ask you which specific forms(s) of Islam are you referring to? Which acts specifically are you referring to? (The more extreme the better). Who is doing the permissing? And who do they represent?
    ----
    EDIT
    I'll give you an example: Al-Taqiyya.

    It is generally accepted by Shias and generally rejected by Sunni sects. I use it because it is something that can be twisted to give a sinister impression wrongly.

    In fact it was often mentioned by Breivik as a pivotal reason as to why Muslims can't be trusted.

    In reality what it is is the permission for Muslims to conceal their faith when in immediate danger of their/or their families lives. This cannot be done if it involves taking the life of an innocent civilian, Muslim or otherwise.


  • Options
    #45
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And why should the burden of proof be on Islam to prove that it's peaceful? Are you a man/woman of peace? If so, have you codified guidelines to prove this to others?

    You keep trying to change the subject. This thread is about a debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.


  • Options
    #46
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Against the motion: Douglas Murray an anti-Islamic Hasbarist http://www.gilad.co.uk/storage/Aaronovich_Hasbara.pdfhttp://www.gilad.co.uk/storage/Aaronovich_Hasbara.pdf

    And an member of the shamelessly partizan NGO Monitor
    http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?viewall=yes&id=2028

    And a supporter of the EDL's methods apparently
    Surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    and Ayaan Hirshi Ali who anti-Islamic terrorist/mass-murderer Breivik published an anti-Islamic (full) article from the brusselsjournal.com in his infamous manifesto proposing that she receive the Nobel Peace Prize

    Surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I think it would be a complete waste of time listening to these spiteful propogandists.


    Surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So you'd expect to get a reasoned and rational argument on Islam from anti-Islamists?


    Surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    chughes wrote:
    Islam, like Christianity and all other religions, are usually led by people with non altruistic aims.
    With respect I'd be highly surprised if you were well enough informed to make such a far-reaching statement on the intentions of countless current and past Islamic leaders.

    All that left is a baseless generalisation.

    I apologise if I am wrong and you are an Islamic scholar.

    Why didn't you also mention Christianity? Why focus solely on Islam in your
    response to a person who mentioned more than Islam in their sentence?
    Coming from a person who goes off & chastises someone for doing the
    exact same thing you did only 12 posts later I mean... pacman.gif

    But surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?

    It really would take four essay's to go into how flawed such arguments
    are, really... I just wonder though, do you genuinely not see the instant
    flaws with such arguments? The fact that such flaws exist is highly
    probable instantly simply by virtue of the hilariously ironic fact you go off
    & criticize someone else for *apparently* doing the exact thing you did
    only 12 posts previous. Surely something like that makes what I'm saying
    at least probable?


  • Options
    #47
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    You keep trying to change the subject. This thread is about a debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.

    Don't take this the wrong way but I suggest you reread the segment you quoted me on. It is specifically related to Islam and being/not being a religion of peace.


  • Options
    #48
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Why didn't you also mention Christianity?

    Because as you can see yourself I said I would be highly surprised if he was familiar enough to make a statement of such magnitude on Islam. I would be far less surprised if he was familiar with Christian Church leaders and it therefore wasn't noteworthy. Simples.


  • Options
    #49
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Don't take this the wrong way but I suggest you reread the segment you quoted me on. It is specifically related to Islam and being/not being a religion of peace.

    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.


  • Options
    #50
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    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'm sorry, I'm confused now.

    What do you mean by....' "Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" '


  • Options
    #51
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I'm confused now.

    What do you mean by....' "Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" '

    It was part of an analogy to demonstrate the pointlessness of asking such questions like the one you asked earlier:
    And why should the burden of proof be on Islam to prove that it's peaceful?

    You don't seem to be interested in presenting any arguments as to why we should view Islam as a religion of peace, instead preferring strawman everyones position and spout a bit of rhetoric. Can't move for the straw in this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    It was part of an analogy to demonstrate the pointlessness of asking such questions like the one you asked earlier:

    I believe it is a valid question. Tell me why you think it is "pointless".
    Standman wrote: »
    You don't seem to be interested in presenting any arguments as to why we should view Islam as a religion of peace, instead preferring strawman everyones position and spout a bit of rhetoric. Can't move for the straw in this thread.

    I'd like you if you don't mind to explain please what you mean by

    Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" '

    I'm especially interested as to what the "I" refers.


  • Options
    #53
    Worztron
    Registered Users Posts: 8,675 ✭✭✭Worztron


    The horrendous method to make sure meat is "halal" is certainly not peaceful. They slaughter the poor animals in the most painful way so that their nonsense of a religion is adhered to.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Options
    #54
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I believe it is a valid question. Tell me why you think it is "pointless".

    Because if we don't look to Islam for evidence as to why it should be viewed as a religion of peace - which is the subject of the debate this thread is about - then where pray tell should we look for it?


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'd like you if you don't mind to explain please what you mean by

    Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" '

    I'm especially interested as to what the "I" refers.

    The "I" refers to myself in the analogy I was making.


  • Options
    #55
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,726 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Worztron wrote: »
    The horrendous method to make sure meat is "halal" is certainly not peaceful. They slaughter the poor animals in the most painful way so that their nonsense of a religion is adhered to.

    thats not always the case. in ireland, the animals are slaughtered the same as non-halal meat. the only difference is the halal meat is blessed and kept separate until it is despatched to the customers.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #56
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    Because if we don't look to Islam for evidence as to why it should be viewed as a religion of peace - which is the subject of the debate this thread is about - then where pray tell should we look for it?
    Well I never said that we shouldn't look to Islam I asked you why in your opinion the burden of proof should lie with Islam to prove that it is a religion of peace.

    Furthermore, what would satisfy you?
    Standman wrote: »
    The "I" refers to myself in the analogy I was making.
    But you didn't make an analogy.


  • Options
    #57
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Well I never said that we shouldn't look to Islam I asked you why in your opinion the burden of proof should lie with Islam to prove that it is a religion of peace.

    Well I never mentioned anything about burdens of proof, you brought it up. If somebody states that Islam is a religion of peace then they should back it up. Simples.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Furthermore, what would satisfy you?

    Well first we would all need to agree on what exactly constitutes a "religion of peace". On reading the Quran it is surprising how quickly it gets into the explicit infidel bashing. Now if any philosophy of peace began with the instant mocking and condemnation of people who do not believe in the it, the whole idea that it is a philosophy of peace seems erroneous. My idea of a peaceful doctrine does not include violence and prejudice, if other people have different ideas (ie one that includes violence and prejudice) then I obviously disagree with them.


  • Options
    #58
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    Well I never mentioned anything about burdens of proof, you brought it up. If somebody states that Islam is a religion of peace then they should back it up. Simples.



    Well first we would all need to agree on what exactly constitutes a "religion of peace". On reading the Quran it is surprising how quickly it gets into the explicit infidel bashing. Now if any philosophy of peace began with the instant mocking and condemnation of people who do not believe in the it, the whole idea that it is a philosophy of peace seems erroneous. My idea of a peaceful doctrine does not include violence and prejudice, if other people have different ideas (ie one that includes violence and prejudice) then I obviously disagree with them.

    You are aware that outside the fringes of Islamic extremists that Christians and Jews are not in fact infidels?


  • Options
    #59
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You are aware that outside the fringes of Islamic extremists that Christians and Jews are not in fact infidels?

    And what has that got to do with anything?? Why do you keep avoiding the topic and bringing up other religions?


  • Options
    #60
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    And what has that got to do with anything?? Why do you keep avoiding the topic and bringing up other religions?

    Quite a lot actually. Your talking about "infidel bashing". It's a common misconception that infidel = non-Muslim

    It's also a common misconception that Muslim leaders do not speak out against Islamic fundamentalist terror.

    They have time and time again.
    http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670291,00.html
    http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_a_few_quotes/0012273
    http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_a_few_quotes/0012273

    B


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Quite a lot actually. Your talking about "infidel bashing". It's a common misconception that infidel = non-Muslim

    Instead of debating semantics, how about debating the actual issue?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement