You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 02:02:49 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?  (Read 12928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #325 on: October 30, 2014, 08:09:20 AM »
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. :P

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. ;) :P

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #326 on: October 30, 2014, 08:20:18 AM »
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.

Yes, but you've run into a problem.  Is my preaching of love, peace and cookies for all as an Imam (a hypothetical one, obvi) somehow not Islam?    Islam's doctrine has no objective existence, it is purely and simply whatever people say it is.  You can't argue that people saying "ignore the violent bits" are not preaching Islam unless you also believe the there is some true, pure and unsullied one true Islam somewhere out there.  There isn't.  Islam is a creation of humans and there's no "central doctrine" or anything like that.  This is called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your argument only applies to Muslims.  To non-Muslims, why are you insisting that Islam is somehow different to what Muslims say it is?  Who, to regress to my childhood for a moment, died and made you king of WhatIslamReallyIsLand?

I'm not sure how well I've phrased that, I'm on my lunch break and have a mouth full of, well...lets not go in to whats in my mouth in the public area of the site. 

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #327 on: October 30, 2014, 08:31:50 AM »
Yes, but you've run into a problem.  Is my preaching of love, peace and cookies for all as an Imam (a hypothetical one, obvi) somehow not Islam?

It's a part of Islam, but not the entirety. I would ask this hypothetical Imam how they decided that the good parts were good and the evil parts were evil when the Quran itself doesn't make any distinction between them, or provide any way of assessing which bits to listen to and which ones to ignore.

Islam's doctrine has no objective existence, it is purely and simply whatever people say it is.

I would argue that point. Islam is based on the Quran, just as Christianity says that the bible is the divine word of God. Therefore, whatever is in those two holy texts must be what those religions "are." The doctrine - in its purest form - is what the holy texts say it is, not what people interpret it to mean. Therefore, the only way to assess whether it's a religion of good or evil is to read the Quran with the assumption that everything is intended to be literal. That way, we can decide whether the doctrine is worth following or not. The flaw with that statement is that by your own logic, I can make up whatever I want and probably find some things in the bible, for example, that can be twisted to support it....it doesn't mean that it actually does support it. I could say that the Bible predicted the rise of Mormonism and probably find a passage in there that, if twisted enough, supported my assertion. Doesn't mean that I would be right, just that I twisted the words to my own purpose. So the question here is what the Quran teaches, and not what people say it teaches. Those are, in my opinion, two different questions, and this question - is Islam a religion of peace? - should focus on what the Quran says and not what people want it to say.

You can't argue that people saying "ignore the violent bits" are not preaching Islam unless you also believe the there is some true, pure and unsullied one true Islam somewhere out there.

Well...I can, because they're not. If they're ignoring the violent bits without ample justification, they're not representing what their holy book - and therefore their religion - actually says. They're representing what they want their religion to say and ignoring what it actually does say.

This is called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Not quite, but that's a minor niggle. My point is simply that, as you say, there is no central doctrine so the only way to analyse the ideals of Islam in its purest form is to look at the source; The Quran.

To non-Muslims, why are you insisting that Islam is somehow different to what Muslims say it is?  Who, to regress to my childhood for a moment, died and made you king of WhatIslamReallyIsLand?

Nobody, but as the holy book of Islam, you would expect the Quran to be an accurate representation of the faith. If it isn't....why cite it, why refer to it, and why follow it? Why not just chuck it and write a new book if the Quran isn't representative of what Islam actually is?

I'm not sure how well I've phrased that, I'm on my lunch break and have a mouth full of, well...lets not go in to whats in my mouth in the public area of the site. 

Uh....huh. I must admit to being somewhat morbidly curious. O_o
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 08:33:56 AM by Vergil Tanner »

Online DarkAngel111

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #328 on: October 30, 2014, 08:33:37 AM »
Quote
Except they're not. Most of the good that Muslims do is because they're good people, and their religion didn't make them that way. Go and actually read the Qoran; on pretty much every page, it is encouraging intolerance in one way or another. If a religion preaches intolerance, violence and war, then it is NOT a religion of peace regardless of how much you twist the words to try and fit modern standards. As I say; the Quran does not preach tolerance and peace. Quite the opposite. What people are told about the Quran is nowhere near the truth. It is just as violent and immoral as the bible.

That's what you said, What muslims do good they do it because they are good people not because their religion tells them to do so.
You are wrong on First count.  Lets move to your Credibility or rather Ability to read.

I did Read your Links. Atleast the Annotations one, The other one is not working for me sadly. But Let me tell you How they have misquoted it.

Firstly They have numbered the references 1-532 But if you look they skip verses like this when quoting,
1 One verse Qouted here  2: 16
2 Second verse Quoted here 2 : 19

What happened to the three in between?
I do understand when someone writes 2:19-21, but not when its done as I showed you above.

Now let me tell you how they have misquoted things Even After giving an apparent Reference.
3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.
The Part Bolded above is the one they are quoting in their so Called *Violent* verses. What they fail to mention is the rest of the verse.
Also I should mention, For those who have not read, next to the full link they have a picture of trade tours falling down and on fire. To tell people that this is what it means.

When in reality if anyone who reads it can tell it means anyone who is associating other gods with allah will be burned in fire. The reference is to hell fire not aviation fuel.


3:147 3:147 Their cry was only that they said: Our Lord! forgive us for our sins and wasted efforts, make our foothold sure, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk.

Once more Bolded part is what they have put in the front page with  the link to the rest in the back. For anyone who will read the whole thing can tell that verse is referring to particular people Who cried,

Because Mr Historian has not mentioned it let me tell you they had cried for help because they were 300 ill armed people defending their women and children against 3000 well armed men.

So Suddenly A religion any for that matter asking help from their god is considered Violent?.

Quite Surprising.



3:139 Faint not nor grieve, for ye will overcome them if ye are (indeed) believers.

This time they cross all boundries of the term Out of Context. The Bolded words are what they say they have said. Instead in the front they have put a explaination of what they believe the bolded sentence means The Explanation is:

(3:139) Believers always defeat unbelievers



Do you want me to go on? Or is the credibility of the site Clear?

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #329 on: October 30, 2014, 08:47:15 AM »
It's a part of Islam, but not the entirety. I would ask this hypothetical Imam how they decided that the good parts were good and the evil parts were evil when the Quran itself doesn't make any distinction between them, or provide any way of assessing which bits to listen to and which ones to ignore.

I would argue that point. Islam is based on the Quran, just as Christianity says that the bible is the divine word of God. Therefore, whatever is in those two holy texts must be what those religions "are." The doctrine - in its purest form - is what the holy texts say it is, not what people interpret it to mean. Therefore, the only way to assess whether it's a religion of good or evil is to read the Quran with the assumption that everything is intended to be literal. That way, we can decide whether the doctrine is worth following or not. The flaw with that statement is that by your own logic, I can make up whatever I want and probably find some things in the bible, for example, that can be twisted to support it....it doesn't mean that it actually does support it. I could say that the Bible predicted the rise of Mormonism and probably find a passage in there that, if twisted enough, supported my assertion. Doesn't mean that I would be right, just that I twisted the words to my own purpose. So the question here is what the Quran teaches, and not what people say it teaches. Those are, in my opinion, two different questions, and this question - is Islam a religion of peace? - should focus on what the Quran says and not what people want it to say.

Well...I can, because they're not. If they're ignoring the violent bits without ample justification, they're not representing what their holy book - and therefore their religion - actually says. They're representing what they want their religion to say and ignoring what it actually does say.

Not quite, but that's a minor niggle. My point is simply that, as you say, there is no central doctrine so the only way to analyse the ideals of Islam in its purest form is to look at the source; The Quran.

Nobody, but as the holy book of Islam, you would expect the Quran to be an accurate representation of the faith. If it isn't....why cite it, why refer to it, and why follow it? Why not just chuck it and write a new book if the Quran isn't representative of what Islam actually is?

Uh....huh. I must admit to being somewhat morbidly curious. O_o

No, you're mistaken here.  It's even clearer in Christianity, but still a mistake in Islam.  You are arguing that Islam has an objective existence derived, at least in part, from its holy books.  This seems reasonable at first glance, but its wrong.  You've said:

"there is no central doctrine so the only way to analyse the ideals of Islam in its purest form is to look at the source; The Quran."

Read that again.  Is the only way to analyse evolution through Origin of Species?  Is the only way to analyse computing through Babbage's notebooks?  Even moving from the sciences, is Marx the last word on Marxism?  Did Bentham give the one true representation of utilitarianism? Is, in short, that true of literally any single other thing under the sun?  Of course it isn't, and you'd get laughed out of the room for suggesting it.  So why is Islam different?  You assert time and time again that it is, but provide not a hint of a reason why other than that you'd really really like it to be true.  Islam is a system of beliefs, we don't pretend that any other system of beliefs is entirely summed up by the book that spawned it, in fact we point and laugh at people who do.  Why are you giving religion special treatment?  Why are you claiming that every other thought system requires a look at how it exactly functions in the world but saying Islam needn't be treated in the same way?  Seriously, read through your post again and replace "Islam" with "Communism" and "Qur'an" with "Communist Manifesto" and tell me its not ludicrously wrong. 

As I say, its even more of a mistake to do it in Christianity, which you almost verge into a few times, but its still simply not the case in Islam.

And, as a side issue, it is a no true scotsman argument.  Islam preaches violence, some people claim to be preaching Islam but preach against violence, they are not preaching True Islam.  Its possible, I guess, that thats not the argument you meant to make, but it is the argument you made.

Offline Robyn

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #330 on: October 30, 2014, 09:00:43 AM »
Read that again.  Is the only way to analyse evolution through Origin of Species?  Is the only way to analyse computing through Babbage's notebooks?  Even moving from the sciences, is Marx the last word on Marxism?  Did Bentham give the one true representation of utilitarianism? Is, in short, that true of literally any single other thing under the sun?  Of course it isn't, and you'd get laughed out of the room for suggesting it.  So why is Islam different?  You assert time and time again that it is, but provide not a hint of a reason why other than that you'd really really like it to be true.  Islam is a system of beliefs, we don't pretend that any other system of beliefs is entirely summed up by the book that spawned it, in fact we point and laugh at people who do.  Why are you giving religion special treatment?  Why are you claiming that every other thought system requires a look at how it exactly functions in the world but saying Islam needn't be treated in the same way?  Seriously, read through your post again and replace "Islam" with "Communism" and "Qur'an" with "Communist Manifesto" and tell me its not ludicrously wrong. 

At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate for a moment. I think you're wrong. The claims made about the Quran are simple, plain and held by every Muslim I've ever had the pleasure of speaking to about their faith. The core claim about the Quran is that it's written by Allah, through the prophet who could not read nor write without Allah specifically guiding him. With that in mind it's perfectly reasonable to say as has been said. No one says it of the Communist Manifesto and Marxism because it is clearly the work of one finite man about an idea. The Quran is The Book of Islam, the Manifesto is a book on Marxism. There's a very important difference there, and by equating the Quran with the Manifesto you do something I've no reason to believe any Muslim would support in making the Quran 'just a book written by men'. I desperately doubt you would find a single Muslim who would agree to that statement, even in small part.

Online DarkAngel111

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #331 on: October 30, 2014, 09:09:22 AM »
At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate for a moment. I think you're wrong. The claims made about the Quran are simple, plain and held by every Muslim I've ever had the pleasure of speaking to about their faith. The core claim about the Quran is that it's written by Allah, through the prophet who could not read nor write without Allah specifically guiding him. With that in mind it's perfectly reasonable to say as has been said. No one says it of the Communist Manifesto and Marxism because it is clearly the work of one finite man about an idea. The Quran is The Book of Islam, the Manifesto is a book on Marxism. There's a very important difference there, and by equating the Quran with the Manifesto you do something I've no reason to believe any Muslim would support in making the Quran 'just a book written by men'. I desperately doubt you would find a single Muslim who would agree to that statement, even in small part.

I may be wrong, but what kythia, meant there was not so much the fact that Quran was written by men, but the argument was made that if you refer to every system of belief a particular way, why do you treat Islam Differently?.

That is just what I made out from her statement, I could be wrong.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #332 on: October 30, 2014, 09:13:35 AM »
That's what you said, What muslims do good they do it because they are good people not because their religion tells them to do so.

So you in fact misread what I said; saying that they did good because they are good and not because their religion told them to is not the same as saying that their religion didn't tell them to do good. Good people will do good regardless of what their religion tells them to do.

Firstly They have numbered the references 1-532 But if you look they skip verses like this when quoting,
1 One verse Qouted here  2: 16
2 Second verse Quoted here 2 : 19
What happened to the three in between?

If you're talking about the Skeptics Annotated one, I have looked at where they skipped lines, and that is simply because they were irrelevant or added nothing to the point; either it was a digression that was largely pointless, or an analogy that furthered the point, or in one instance a digression about the calendar for some reason. Skipping a few irrelevant lines doesn't mean they're ignoring things that qualify them, especially when you can click on the link and read it in context and the meaning doesn't change.


Now let me tell you how they have misquoted things Even After giving an apparent Reference.
3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.
The Part Bolded above is the one they are quoting in their so Called *Violent* verses. What they fail to mention is the rest of the verse.

Because the rest of the verse wasn't relevant. This is the next few lines:

Allah verily made good His promise unto you when ye routed them by His leave, until (the moment) when your courage failed you, and ye disagreed about the order and ye disobeyed, after He had shown you that for which ye long. Some of you desired the world, and some of you desired the Hereafter. Therefore He made you flee from them, that He might try you. Yet now He hath forgiven you. Allah is a Lord of Kindness to believers.

When ye climbed (the hill) and paid no heed to anyone, while the messenger, in your rear, was calling you (to fight). Therefor He rewarded you grief for (his) grief, that (He might teach) you not to sorrow either for that which ye missed or for that which befell you. Allah is Informed of what ye do.

Then, after grief, He sent down security for you. As slumber did it overcome a party of you, while (the other) party, who were anxious on their own account, thought wrongly of Allah, the thought of ignorance. They said: Have we any part in the cause ? Say (O Muhammad): The cause belongeth wholly to Allah. They hide within themselves (a thought) which they reveal not unto thee, saying: Had we had any part in the cause we should not have been slain here. Say: Even though ye had been in your houses, those appointed to be slain would have gone forth to the places where they were to lie. (All this hath been) in order that Allah might try what is in your breasts and prove what is in your hearts. Allah is Aware of what is hidden in the breasts (of men).


How does that change the meaning of the cited verse? They skipped it because it was a story that had nothing to do with the point they were making.

Also I should mention, For those who have not read, next to the full link they have a picture of trade tours falling down and on fire. To tell people that this is what it means.

It was a snarky way of saying "this is pretty much what it means." And....they're right. The Twin Towers certainly were fiery terror, weren't they? But I have to ask....relevance?

When in reality if anyone who reads it can tell it means anyone who is associating other gods with allah will be burned in fire. The reference is to hell fire not aviation fuel.

Again, it was a snarky reference. I don't necessarily think it's in good taste - I think it would be better if they removed that - but it's obviously facetious. Of course it doesn't refer to plane fuel...but are you saying that non-believers being burned for eternity is any more moral?

3:147 3:147 Their cry was only that they said: Our Lord! forgive us for our sins and wasted efforts, make our foothold sure, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk.

Once more Bolded part is what they have put in the front page with  the link to the rest in the back. For anyone who will read the whole thing can tell that verse is referring to particular people Who cried,

Because Mr Historian has not mentioned it let me tell you they had cried for help because they were 300 ill armed people defending their women and children against 3000 well armed men.

And where exactly does the passage make that clear? Or is that just your interpolation? Nowhere in the passage that I can find does it even vaguely mention that they were under attack or in distress. This passage is actually more outlining what they believe and what they cry out to Allah, and not chronicling an attack as best I can see.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/3/index.htm#151

That's the link to the passage in question; if anybody can find it where I missed it, I would be much obliged. But reading all the way back from 70, I can't find a mention of people who were attacking ill and sick women and children. If you can point me to the part of that massive text that makes that clear, I would be very grateful.

So Suddenly A religion any for that matter asking help from their god is considered Violent?.

If you had read the page that took you to that area, it said "intolerance in the Quran," not "violence." And non-believers burning in hell? Yeah, I would call that intolerant.


3:139 Faint not nor grieve, for ye will overcome them if ye are (indeed) believers.

This time they cross all boundries of the term Out of Context. The Bolded words are what they say they have said. Instead in the front they have put a explaination of what they believe the bolded sentence means The Explanation is:

(3:139) Believers always defeat unbelievers

That is what it means! They're translating it to a more common wording pattern. "Ye will overcome them if you are believers." Considering that the rest of the passage has been making comparisons between believers and non-believers, I think it's pretty clear that that is what was meant. If they're wrong, then please, explain what the line actually meant.


Do you want me to go on? Or is the credibility of the site Clear?

Yes. You're doing a brilliant job of criticising the reliability of the site. [/sarcasm]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, you're mistaken here.  It's even clearer in Christianity, but still a mistake in Islam.  You are arguing that Islam has an objective existence derived, at least in part, from its holy books.  This seems reasonable at first glance, but its wrong.  You've said:

"there is no central doctrine so the only way to analyse the ideals of Islam in its purest form is to look at the source; The Quran."

Read that again.  Is the only way to analyse evolution through Origin of Species?  Is the only way to analyse computing through Babbage's notebooks?  Even moving from the sciences, is Marx the last word on Marxism?  Did Bentham give the one true representation of utilitarianism? Is, in short, that true of literally any single other thing under the sun?  Of course it isn't, and you'd get laughed out of the room for suggesting it.  So why is Islam different?

I'll explain why.

When we talk about evolution, do we still cite Darwin as the ultimate authority?

No, and if you did, you would have to defend what was in his book.

When we talk about computing, do we cite Babbage as the ultimate authority?

No, and if you did, you would have to defend that notebook.

When we talk about communism, do we cite Marx as the final, ultimate authority?

No, and if you did, you would have to defend his ideas.

When Muslims talk about Islam, do they cite the Quran as the final, ultimate authority?

Yes! and they have to therefore defend the Quran from criticism and justify why they interpret it in a certain way. If they cite it as their authority, then we analyse it. So I go back to a previous question; if they aren't following the Quran any more, why cite it? And if they cite it, why can't we analyse it to see whether it says what they say it says and whether it is peaceful or not?

Thing is, science evolves and moves on, and new books are written and new tests get done and our understanding improves and older, inaccurate books are discarded in favour of newer, more complete and accurate ones.
Religion doesn't do that.
It evolves, and then tries to retroactively jam its new ideas into their religious texts to try and pretend that they were there all along...so as long as Islam is citing the Quran, and Christianity is citing the bible, those two books are open to criticism, analysis and commentary. As soon as they stop citing those books, then you'll have a point. But as long as they are using their holy books as the ultimate authority, they can expect their holy books to be heavily scrutinised and analysed to see if it is saying what they say it is saying.


Why are you claiming that every other thought system requires a look at how it exactly functions in the world but saying Islam needn't be treated in the same way?  Seriously, read through your post again and replace "Islam" with "Communism" and "Qur'an" with "Communist Manifesto" and tell me its not ludicrously wrong.

That's a false equivocation, as explained above. In terms of what people believe, I usually ask "what do you believe and why?" But in relation to the question, as long as Muslims are citing the Quran as their ultimate authority, the Quran is relevant to the question of whether Islam is a religion of peace or not. As soon as they stop citing it, it will no longer be relevant.

And, as a side issue, it is a no true scotsman argument.  Islam preaches violence, some people claim to be preaching Islam but preach against violence, they are not preaching True Islam.  Its possible, I guess, that thats not the argument you meant to make, but it is the argument you made.

As long as they cite the Quran, they are bound to be compared to what the Quran actually says. As long as they state that the Quran is the word of Allah, if they are not doing something the Quran specifically says to do, then they are not following the word of Allah. As soon as they stop citing the Quran, I will stop comparing their actions to what the Quran actually says.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #333 on: October 30, 2014, 09:16:41 AM »
At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate for a moment. I think you're wrong. The claims made about the Quran are simple, plain and held by every Muslim I've ever had the pleasure of speaking to about their faith. The core claim about the Quran is that it's written by Allah, through the prophet who could not read nor write without Allah specifically guiding him. With that in mind it's perfectly reasonable to say as has been said. No one says it of the Communist Manifesto and Marxism because it is clearly the work of one finite man about an idea. The Quran is The Book of Islam, the Manifesto is a book on Marxism. There's a very important difference there, and by equating the Quran with the Manifesto you do something I've no reason to believe any Muslim would support in making the Quran 'just a book written by men'. I desperately doubt you would find a single Muslim who would agree to that statement, even in small part.

Indeed, DarkAngel's right.  You've missed Vergil's point a little and hence misunderstood my answer, Robyn.  Vergil claimed that, as I quoted in my post:

"there is no central doctrine so the only way to analyse the ideals of Islam in its purest form is to look at the source; The Quran."

My point is that that is obviously and clearly not the only way of doing it, and that an argument built from the fact that it is is incorrect.  We have another very good way of analysing it, one we use quite succesfully for every single thing in the entire universe.  But apparently, "looking at how it actually works in the real world" isn't a suitable method for analysing Islam, because reasons.

Offline Robyn

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #334 on: October 30, 2014, 09:20:18 AM »
Indeed, DarkAngel's right.  You've missed Vergil's point a little and hence misunderstood my answer, Robyn.  Vergil claimed that, as I quoted in my post:

"there is no central doctrine so the only way to analyse the ideals of Islam in its purest form is to look at the source; The Quran."

My point is that that is obviously and clearly not the only way of doing it, and that an argument built from the fact that it is is incorrect.  We have another very good way of analysing it, one we use quite succesfully for every single thing in the entire universe.  But apparently, "looking at how it actually works in the real world" isn't a suitable method for analysing Islam, because reasons.

Well, mainly because the things you're comparing are not alike. The Manifesto is a book, not The Book, on Marxism. The Origin of Species is a book on evolution, not The Book on evolution. The difference is important. Islam is from the Quran. The Quran is The Book on Islam, so looking to the Quran is the way to know what is and is not Islam.

As I said, I've not met a single Muslim who would support your position that it's just a man-made book and so can be ignored in favour of human practices.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #335 on: October 30, 2014, 09:26:09 AM »
As I said, I've not met a single Muslim who would support your position that it's just a man-made book and so can be ignored in favour of human practices.

With the best will in the world, Robyn, that's not, yanno, terribly important.  There's a thing called "Tafsir" - we'd translate it "exegesis" - and vast swathes of that make exactly that claim.  What you have and haven't heard isn't, yanno, terribly relevant. 

Quote from: Wikipedia
Scholars deeply influenced by the natural and social sciences followed the materialists of Europe or the pragmatists. Under the influence of those secular theories, they declared that the religion's realities cannot go against scientific knowledge. What the religion claims to exist, but which the sciences reject should be interpreted in a way that conforms with the science; as for those things which the science is silent about, like the resurrection etc., they should be brought within the purview of the laws of matter; the pillars upon which the divine religious laws are based — like revelation, angel, Satan, prophethood, apostleship, Imamah (Imamate) etc. - are spiritual things, and the spirit is a development of the matter. As for the Qur'an itself, one should not explain it in the light of the old philosophy and theories, because they were not based on observations and tests — they were just a sort of mental exercise which has been totally discredited now by the modem science. Found by Ghazali and built upon by Razi, it is one of today's most abundant way of tafsir. Common examples are;

Mafatiḥ al-Ghayb by Fakhruddin al-Razi
Tafhim-ul-Quran by Abul A'la Maududi

ETA:  My lunch break is over.  Good talking to you all, will probably swing by the thread later.  For now, though, *disappears in a puff of smoke*
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 09:27:49 AM by Kythia »

Offline Lithos

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #336 on: October 30, 2014, 09:36:36 AM »
Where it comes to changes in Islam that ended the scientific prominence of arabic nations, this article is a very good read, so are its very diverse and professionally selected sources:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4316

Everything under references & further reading is rather good in addition as well. The changes that started from Al-Ghazali's influence and were made further extreme by the crusades have changed what originally was religion appreciating scholars to something very different.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 09:51:51 AM by Lithos »

Online DarkAngel111

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #337 on: October 30, 2014, 09:45:19 AM »
Quote
Again, it was a snarky reference. I don't necessarily think it's in good taste - I think it would be better if they removed that - but it's obviously facetious. Of course it doesn't refer to plane fuel...but are you saying that non-believers being burned for eternity is any more moral?

Well The reference here is of hellfire, Every religion does say there is punishment for those who do not follow your religion, it does not promote Non-tolerant behavior.

Simply states that what will happen to them after they die, how is that In-tolerant?.

And to specify, the context, if you call yourself a historian, and don't know the context that is really surprising. That whole Verse quotes the incident of Uhad. So in that context the non-believers of the time were those who were attacking them.


As for Chapter 3 Verse 151, I said they had not quoted the entire verse. What you have quoted is the next three verses. My objection was mainly that they skipped the part where the Quran says those who are associating other Gods With allah, would burn in hell fire. Not ALL non-believers.


Now lets come on to Chapter three verse 147

According to you, there is nowhere it is written that there was a war.

It is surprising you don't know that the whole three verses you qouted that Follow after Verse 147, state the incident of battle of Uhad.

Although I do agree I have mistakenly Quoted the wrong battle previously. the Battle it refers to here is Uhad. The appropriate link with reference to history and the Verse can be found on Wikipedia.


Quote
For the Muslims, the battle held a religious dimension as well as a military one. They had expected another victory like at Badr, which was considered a sign of God's favor upon them. At Uhud, however, they had barely held off the invaders and had lost a great many men. A verse of the Qur'an revealed soon after the battle cited the Muslims' disobedience and desire for loot as the cause for this setback:[2][23]

    Allah did indeed fulfil His promise to you when ye with His permission Were about to annihilate your enemy,-until ye flinched and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed it after He brought you in sight (of the booty) which ye covet. Among you are some that hanker after this world and some that desire the Hereafter. Then did He divert you from your foes in order to test you but He forgave you: For Allah is full of grace to those who believe.
    —Qur'an, sura 3 (Al-i-Imran), ayah 152

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud#Encounter_at_Uhud

Above is the link, when you click to Muslim Reaction, in table of contents it will take you straight to the Qouted verse.

Surah 3 (Or called Chapter 3) And Verse number 151. The whole surah is in reference to that incident at Uhad, and I am not Making it up as you think.


Now do you still think its just my Opinion that it was a situation of war?.
Because everything else seems to agree with my account?.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 09:47:38 AM by DarkAngel111 »

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #338 on: October 30, 2014, 10:00:51 AM »
Well The reference here is of hellfire, Every religion does say there is punishment for those who do not follow your religion, it does not promote Non-tolerant behavior.

Not intolerant behaviour, but intolerance nonetheless. People who don't agree with you get burned for all eternity; again, how is that tolerant of other peoples beliefs and opinions?

Simply states that what will happen to them after they die, how is that In-tolerant?

If you honestly can't see how thinking that non-believers deserve to burn for all eternity is intolerant of their opinions, then I don't know what else to say.

And to specify, the context, if you call yourself a historian, and don't know the context that is really surprising. That whole Verse quotes the incident of Uhad. So in that context the non-believers of the time were those who were attacking them.

On closer reading I can see it, so in this instance, I apologise; I'm in the middle of writing an essay on Roman plumbing, which is about as interesting as it sounds, so my attention isn't on this discussion 100%.


As for Chapter 3 Verse 151, I said they had not quoted the entire verse. What you have quoted is the next three verses. My objection was mainly that they skipped the part where the Quran says those who are associating other Gods With allah, would burn in hell fire. Not ALL non-believers.

And that somehow makes it better? And the "all non-believers burn" is in the Quran too, just in a different area. As it is, that's still intolerant. Even if you disagree with them saying that Allah has "partners," is the rational, tolerant reaction to consign them to fiery damnation?


According to you, there is nowhere it is written that there was a war.

addressed above; I wasn't concentrating on this conversation, so got it wrong. My apologies.

Although I do agree I have mistakenly Quoted the wrong battle previously. the Battle it refers to here is Uhad. The appropriate link with reference to history and the Verse can be found on Wikipedia.

Yes, I remember mention to it in other books. Though I didn't know what specifically happened, I had heard of it in my studies.

Now do you still think its just my Opinion that it was a situation of war?.
Because everything else seems to agree with my account?.

Nope. In that instance, you were entirely right (aside from the fact that you were - as you say - citing the wrong battle, you were right that it was a reference to a defensive battle) and I was wrong. For that, I apologise.

However, it doesn't remove the fact that there are also many times in the Quran where the Muslims are encouraged to start these things, and that there are despicable things in the Quran.



Also, as a side note:

Reading back, I realise that on occasion I got unintentionally aggressive and borderline insulting. That is not how I intended to come across, so I apologise if I caused offence at any point; as I noted, I have no problems whatsoever with religious people, regardless of my personal issues with some religions. So....yeah, I'm sorry. I was overly aggressive at times and dismissive at others, and I hope you won't hold that against me. It's been a long ass week, and I'm not the best at wording things diplomatically at the best of times, haha. :-)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 10:02:52 AM by Vergil Tanner »

Online DarkAngel111

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #339 on: October 30, 2014, 10:33:32 AM »
It is all good, I too at times get carried away with what I say.

But in the times we live who is there really who can be labelled peaceful?.

In general as long as mankind has existed they have hated Change. If someone challenges a way of thinking they are instantly branded wrong. Traitors/Terrorists. Etc.

Islam is not a religion of peace, but it is not one of violence either that is what I believe in. I would just as much protest a muslim critizing christianity as I would anyone critisizing Islam.

Almost always war has been political. In case of muslims it was political as well. The whole Islamic expansion was done to secure the khilafat as well, because the new empire was threatened by false prophets. Anyway, I should probably pack up my things and hunker down there is a storm headed our way.

Hope everyone has a Good day. :)

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #340 on: October 30, 2014, 10:46:33 AM »
Politics and religion has a way of bringing that out in people, doesn't it? Haha.

Oh, I agree that most people have their violent moments. I mean, I'm not a violent person but I can imagine scenarios in which I would become one. As the segway a page or so ago illustrated, it all depends on how you define "peaceful," haha.

And yeah, change is scary. However, I do like to think that we are currently growing out of that mindset. Change is happening a bit more rapidly now, and thanks to our somewhat more liberal younger generations, that's going to only increase in pace. The internet, for all its flaws, has been a massive tool in the progressives box. So thank you, internet! We love you despite your Tumblrs and 4Chans and dark, dark, secret areas that scar us for life! :D :P

I never said it was a religion of war....just that I don't think it can be labelled one of peace. On that, we agree. ^_^

This is true, but religion in general has been the enabler for war; the tool with which it was justified, and the cause of a lot of arguments that led to wars. I mean....without religion muddying the issue, it's arguable that there would have been a lot fewer political falling-outs in history...for example, the East and West Roman Empire! XD Of course, it's also debatable that in absence of religion, they would have found something else to bicker about. But that is a conversation for its own thread, methinks. ;) :P

I hope you have a good day as well! And good luck with the storm; I hope you come out of it with your belongings intact. :P

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #341 on: October 31, 2014, 08:56:47 AM »
          To toss in another nudge toward the "However one measures all this as behavior really again?" question...  Or for whatever else it might inspire.

Aslan had a column a few days back in CNN that might be of some interest:

               " How strong is the link between faith and terrorism? "

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #342 on: November 04, 2014, 05:03:14 AM »
Yes, Islam's religion is about peace. And it is not. It's more of a "Love thy neighbor, as long as they are of Islam." Kind of mentality. Or, "Try to show others the wisdom of Islam. Get close, Be their friend, and strike if they wont see your way." Not all are like this, but their religion pretty much say's that it is not only ok to kill those whom don't convert, but also it is forgiven. Much like any religion, it has it's fair share of Zealots. And much like The Catholic Templars would invade Jerusalem. Much how the streets of rome were in riot with Catholicism vs  Paganism.  Islam is radically fighting for their religions supremacy. Stuck with an old obsolete ideal, that you can force some one to keep your point of view. Not all are bad, but enough so to be wary. Terrorism is a terrible thing to fight, because that white guy in that hoodie could be a convert. They don't wear their colors in public, they show them when they strike.

Offline Ebb

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #343 on: November 04, 2014, 08:24:28 AM »
Not all are like this, but their religion pretty much say's that it is not only ok to kill those whom don't convert, but also it is forgiven.

This is a truly extraordinary claim. Can you point to anything to back this up?

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #344 on: November 04, 2014, 09:12:51 AM »
Well, not exactly. No text that I know of says this, I am speaking of what radicals tell radicals. I state this under the same principle that Crusaders within the third catholic crusade did horrible things, because the priests absolved them of any and all crimes they will commit. (Raping, stealing, and killing.) Essentially, what I said in retrospect is a fallacy. But, as well an assumption made upon the fact they will tell a fellow radical anything, to convince them they are right, and will be rewarded by their god. That's just what religious crusaders do. "You are absolved, do as you must."

Or in terms of Islam. "You will be rewarded with 72 virgins for your sacrifice to god."

Edit: So my statement should have been. Their religion promotes peace, but radical leaders promote otherwise, with the guise of peace.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 09:19:03 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Formless

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #345 on: November 04, 2014, 09:29:22 AM »
Well, not exactly. No text sais this, I am speaking of what radicals tell radicals. I state this under the same principle that Crusaders within the third catholic crusade did horrible things, because the priests absolved them of any and all crimes they will commit. (Raping, stealing, and killing.) Essentially, what I said in retrospect is a fallacy. But, as well an assumption made upon the fact they will tell a fellow radical anything, to convince them they are right, and will be rewarded by their god. That's just what religious crusaders do. "You are absolved, do as you must."

Or in terms of Islam. "You will be rewarded with 72 virgins for your sacrifice to god."

So the because someone told another that they should do something in the name of something when that something didn't say that , it still makes it what that something is.

I know that sounded like nonsense , but this is exactly what is wrong with the world towards religion , not just Islam or Christianity , or even ideology.

You mix up the lies with the truth , just so you can find an easy label to plaster over something alien and foreign to you.

Did Islam told people to board air plains and ram them towards sky scrapers? No it was some wretched person who exploited the hopeless minds of people who lost their purpose in life and made them think they did something good. And it is also an abominable being who nurtured someone's hatred to the point where he made it worth it to throw their lives for what those things can do.

It laughable how people admit that religion was used to feed someone's ambition and agenda and in the same sentence they also admit how its the man behind the idea and not the religion.

f you actually think hat if a certain religion didn't exist , the atrocities in their name wouldn't have happened , then what do you ink would happen back then? If Moses did not receives a prophecy , would the Pharaoh never kill the newborns? If Christ didn't receive the prophecy , the Crusades would've never happened? If Mohammad didn't receive the prophecy , then modern terrorism wouldn't have happened?

Its the men behind the ideology that brings down these atrocities. Conflict will always be born. People can live in peace , but they will also live in conflict. Brothers can loathe each others. Children loathes their parents. Conflict is always there , religion is just one fuel of many.

Offline Ebb

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #346 on: November 04, 2014, 11:16:08 AM »
Edit: So my statement should have been. Their religion promotes peace, but radical leaders promote otherwise, with the guise of peace.

That seems much more on target, thanks. The danger here is the automatic extrapolation of the beliefs of the most vocal, radical leaders to the whole of Islam. That's like looking at the rantings of the Westboro Baptist Church and attributing their teachings to all of Christianity. And I'd maintain that this is far from a pedantic clarification, but really goes to the heart of the perspective necessary to understand a foreign belief system. Don't look only at the fringe elements.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #347 on: November 04, 2014, 12:24:08 PM »
Well, not exactly. No text that I know of says this, I am speaking of what radicals tell radicals. I state this under the same principle that Crusaders within the third catholic crusade did horrible things, because the priests absolved them of any and all crimes they will commit. (Raping, stealing, and killing.) Essentially, what I said in retrospect is a fallacy. But, as well an assumption made upon the fact they will tell a fellow radical anything, to convince them they are right, and will be rewarded by their god. That's just what religious crusaders do. "You are absolved, do as you must."

Or in terms of Islam. "You will be rewarded with 72 virgins for your sacrifice to god."

Edit: So my statement should have been. Their religion promotes peace, but radical leaders promote otherwise, with the guise of peace.

And just to add to Ebb's point - the other issue is that its not just what radicals tell radicals.  Its also what you tell radicals.  What exactly is the benefit of criticising radical Islamist clerics for radicalising the youth when you are feeding them literally, word for word, the same messages.  Maybe knock that off.

Offline Lady Laura

  • APPROVAL REVOKED
  • Permabanned
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #348 on: November 05, 2014, 05:55:05 AM »
It's a religion of violence and oppression and the Left Wing PC set love it! Enough said I think.

Offline Ebb

Re: Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?
« Reply #349 on: November 05, 2014, 08:12:59 AM »
It's a religion of violence and oppression and the Left Wing PC set love it! Enough said I think.

Well, it's difficult to argue with that.

I will admit that in reality it can be difficult to separate study of the Islamic religion from the politics and practices of many modern Islamic states and organizations, some of which are indeed quite violent and oppressive. But I think it's worthwhile to keep the separation in mind as much as possible, since it is a complex subject.

It can be instructive to look at Indonesia, for example. This is the country with the largest Islamic population in the world (over 200 million), yet it maintains a secular government and has largely been free of the religious-based violence seen in the middle east.