Ironically, you seem to have responded to my pointing out there are other definitions by doubling down on your chosen one.
Words do have meanings, yes. That 's' at the end signifies there is more than one. Insisting that we only use the one you want to when others are perfectly valid is troublesome.
It has multiple meanings, yes, but my interpretation of the question is "Does it encourage peaceful coexistence?" We can argue over which definition the original poster meant all day long - it was an, at best, vague question - but until we have a specific definition we'll be going around in circles. I am using peace in the sense of international/inter-cultural, tolerant coexistence, which is what I think the poster meant. But taking your posted definitions:
1) "Free from disturbance." Well, Islam certainly fails that one because it actively encourages going off and "disturbing" other people, regardless of whether they were "in your face" or not.
2) "The State of being free from civil disorder." Again, in that sense it isn't, since Jihad inherently means overturning society and causing Civil Strife until they decide to buckle and come over to Islam (or kill them).
3) "a ceremonial handshake or kiss exchanged during a service in some Churches (now usually only in the Eucharist), symbolizing Christian love and unity."
Again, it fails because that's a Christian thing and not an Islam thing.
Anyway. I think it's obvious - at least to me - what sense of the word the original poster was using, which is "coexistence without conflict." But without the poster actually saying "this is what I meant," (maybe he did and I missed it?) we're going to end up going around the houses. But in this context, I think "My chosen definition" makes the most sense in the context of the question.
Errrrrm, this is incredibly untrue. You even, in the same post as you made this point, talk about holy texts encouraging violence. God intended people to commit violence. I think you need to come at this from a radically different angle, because this one is mistaken.
I'll hold my hands up to this one, it wasn't the most consistently phrased and as such, I apologise. What I meant was that in some branches - such as Calvanism and to a certain degree Protestantism - it was always Gods plan, in others it wasn't and was caused by the devil (God specifically told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple, and it was the devil (depending on who you ask) that convinced them that it was a good idea). There are tens of thousands of different sects that all think different things. Thing is....we don't know what the overall plan was from "gods" perspective. It's like....we know what colour Spock's blood is, but not his earwax. It's off-script. So honestly, I think it's a bit of both; a little bit of contradiction and a little bit of violent intent. Either way, you're right; I was mistaken here (it was early, and I was in a rush to get to work so I didn't think my post through all the wya), so I apologise.
Well, now all your doing is insisting on your definition of peace once again.
Of course I am; I think it's the one that makes the most sense given the phrasing of the question.
You're arguing against yourself. You claim that "there are a lot of plotholes and contradictions within [the Qur'an]" but then go on, above, to say the Qur'an claims x,y,z. In good faith, I'm assuming you're unaware of the various verses that preach exactly the opposite, but I suggest you dig a little.
No no, I'm aware of the verses that preach the opposite, my point was simply that it cannot be a religion of peace if it preaches violence, regardless of whether it contradicts itself later on. Most interestingly, though, the peaceful verses are mostly from earlier on in the Quran and get "superseded" by some of the later ones. Regardless, even if it does contradict itself (and it does, frequently), it still has those violent ones in there and as such cannot be called tolerant or nice.
There is literally no such thing as Islam absent Muslims. Islam is entirely a construct of people. I was under the impression you thought that as well? Apologies if I was wrong, I had it in my head you weren't religious.
Haha, no, I'm not religious. My point there was that the ideology should be analysed for its worth absent what people do in its name in order to be utterly fair; people do a lot of horrible things in the name of all sorts of things, and it doesn't necessarily mean that what they're citing actually says that. So all I was saying here was that we should look at Islam's doctrine to determine whether it preaches peace and ignore what people try and use Islam to justify until we've decided whether the central doctrine is peaceful or not.
As discussed above, you seem very unclear on whether you think holy texts, the Qur'an specifically, give multiple contradictory messages or one clear path. Are you able to expand on this a little? Quite honestly, it looks very much like you claim "multiple contradictory" when that would make a religion look 'bad' and "single, clear" when that would. I hope not.
I think I addressed this above. My position is simply this:
- The Quran and the Bible are both full of plotholes and contradictions, and should not be trusted or taken as a serious basis for morality due to its "Multiple Choice" nature.
- The bad in each book does not outweigh the good, and that any ideology that has justifications for violence and intolerance cannot be called a religion of peace. Now, I am not saying that Islam is a religion of war necessarily - though I think a good case could be made in that respect - just that we cannot honestly say that it is a religion of peace when it actively condones violence and intolerance, even if earlier parts contradict it.
I hope that clears things up.
In general, as I said, I haven't yet decided whether I agree with that statement (religions of peace would seek to curb aggressive urges) or not. It feels right, but I'm not sure because niggles above. Basically, I don't think the statement is meaningful, that there's no simple, unambiguous way of reading it that an agreement or disagreement can be hooked on to. It's woolly beyond the point a meaning can be extracted.
I agree; the initial question was rather vague, and without specifying what is meant by "peace" and how to go about determining it, it's a bit woolly. Similarly, my "throw away" comment was towards the end of my rushed post, so I didn't have time to refine it. Your suggestion on a more focused statement is better than my one, haha.
Haha, you cannot be more Blinded by hate for a religion if yo say that The quran does not tell muslims to do good.
I never said that, and if I did, then I apologise; I misspoke. I simply pointed out that it tells them to do abhorrently bad things as well. However, assuming for a moment that I DIDN'T specifically say that, please don't strawman me.
I doubt that you have read the quran. Because you have to google things to find them.
Really? This is what you're going with? I've read the Quran, I just don't have it all memorised.
I'm sorry for using the internet to find the specific passage so I don't misquote.
Let me tell you as much is internet a tool of knowledge so is it a tool for misguidance and propaganda. Next time you want to look for a verse of a quran find a site which has the FULL version of quran on it.
Both sites I linked to have the full text. They link to the actual passage in question after every quote. Skeptics Annotated Bible has the full Quran there as well.
Not just a *Single line* stating a violent act.
Single line? Try entire passages and chapters.
I have previously in this topic found more then once that people had qouted verses out of context. Sadly the Link you sent is restricted here for some reason I will have to restart my laptop to get around it but until then let me tell you a few things.
So you're going to respond to me assuming I quoted "out of context" without actually reading the links that I sent you? How can you be making an informed reply, in that case?
1. I have Read the Quran, I am a Muslim, I know the Quran tells us to Sacrifice our wealth to the poor, treat our servants as we would our own family. And when giving charity give what we would wear ourselves rather than something of poor quality.
Not denying any of that. But it also tells you to go and kill the unbeliever, execute unruly children and murder members of your own family if they dishonour you...which was my point. In my eyes, any ideology that even tries to justify something so heinous cannot be a peaceful, progressive, tolerant religion.
So clearly when you say Islam has not told any of its followers to do any good. you are clearly wrong.
Again, I don't recall ever specifically saying that the Quran doesn't teach good things as well.
And you have no idea what quran says save for few things you have read in Anti Islamic Sites.
I originally read a copy of the Quran I got from our universities societies fair, and then went and read the Skeptics Annotated version. It's not anti-Islamic; if it had value, it would acknowledge it.
Don't go telling me, that what they say about quran is no what it really says. I have never said that there aren't violent verses in the quran, But If you want to understand the meaning of them you need to read the chapters.
I have. Much like slavery in the bible, the context doesn't justify even a quarter of these violent, horrible acts.
The problem is Most of the people don't even know basic history of Islam.
I do. Classical and Medieval historian here.
Maybe you can read a few Cambridge Approved books on Islamic history, there are over 400 pages of proof read history there. Maybe that will help you understand the religion better?
I have, and this is swiftly devolving into an Ad Hominem fallacy as you try and claim that I don't understand Islam. Instead of trying to attack my credibility, why not address my actual arguments?
2. You went on to say clearly I had not read the Quran. I have read the Quran. And for the last 7 years do so every year. With translation and explanation. So I probably know more about the Quran than you do.
This, I will admit. I made an assumption, and I shouldn't have; you know what they say about assuming....it's not a good idea. So for that, I apologise. However, it doesn't make any of what I said any less valid.
3rd. Just managed to open one of the links you had pasted. If you see, that they have qouted Single Verses Out of Complete Chapters.
And then they link to the relevant verses, which are embedded in the rest of the text.
If you see the markings at the end, It seems to be skipping 2-4 verses in between,
Actually, I believe what the "6:12-15" means is 6:12 TO 6:15, which includes 6:13 and 6:14. Similarly, they are citing the relevant verses for direct quotes and leaving out the bits that are superfluous, much like modern historians do when quoting primary sources. They do, however, link to the full text, and the "context" doesn't make any difference to what the verse says. Also, many of the quotes then have the context explained
after the verse.
When you are reading quran in bits and pieces. Its considered *OUT OF CONTEXT*.
Except it isn't out of context. People use that phrase a lot, and I doubt some of them actually know what it means.
If you don't realize that, clearly there is no point arguing.
And if you can't realise that the context doesn't change the meaning and trying to attack my credibility doesn't do anything in regards to my actual points, then I agree.