Islam: Religion Of Peace?

[Didacus]

1. A more appropriate title may be "Violent Ideology in Islamic Theology" or something like that. There are qualities of Islam that make it an especially convenient vehicle for violent interpretation. Other religions are not as "available." Pacisficm is central to Jainism. The jews were interested in territorial conquest but were indifferent to conversion. Jesus gave a personal example of nonviolence, told his disciples to sheath their swords, and advised a separation of religion and state.

 

Islam has a mix of war tradition, zeal for conversion and a distinct theology about religion and politics as a unitary dimension - all of which make it partiuclarly vulnerable to people who want to make use of it for violent political demonstrations.

 

As a Christian, I believe that Islam is not a revealed religion.  I assume you believe the same. Therefore, for us, there is no "authentic" interpretation of Islamic scripture. Islam in fact teaches only whatever the Muslims choose to believe it teaches. Some of them believe it teaches peace, some of them violence. Islamic teaching, based as it is on a man-made religion, has no essential properties - peaceful, violent, or whatever.

 

2. Muslims do not see Mohammad as Christians do Jesus. He is not God. They don't categorize him as among "the sinners" -  but by that they mean he was not a big time sinner. He is not considered perfect. Many places in the Quran he is portrayed as asking for God's forgivness for his sins. A number of times it is noted that he went against God's will.

 

Same thing with the Mormons. They do not think that Joseph Smith was without sin. So going on and on about how awful Joseph Smith was does not impress them very much. Doesn't work on the Jews either. They know that King David was a rapist and murderer.

 

nihil obstat to point one.

 

Poiint 2:

It is not a question that they see mohammed as Christians see Jesus...

It is that both religions have a point in common in considering muhammed from an islamic point of view as compared to Jesus viewed from a Christian pint of view.  And that point in common is that muhammed is held in islam as the one highest human example to be followed and immitated, just as Jesus is held as the one example to be followed and immitated in Christianity.

I agree with the rest of the differences you site.  I do not believe I ever claimed the two were precisely the same.

 

I did share the point you pose for Joseph Smith and King David; they are seen as biblical characters that can be criticised.  Although muhammed is admiteddly imperfect - try criticism him in public islamic circles?  Remember, drawing even a simple depiction of him warrants death threats from accross the world.  It is inherently obvious and octinuously proven on the world stage that ilsam does not accept that muhammed be criticised at the same level as King David, Joseph Smith, Bob, George, Bill and even Jesus.

[NotreDame]

I for one appreciate Hasan's comments, they are neither trollish nor evasive... they simply argue against your points in a way you seem not to like.

Respectfully,  I don't think lobbing the term "racist" at someone without any support constitutes an argument.  Further, I think using the term and then refusing to justify it's use is certainly evasive.  Were it the only time it's been done I may have overlooked it, but since Hasan has done the same to me previously I chose not to ignore it.  

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

OK so still on that 'christians are bad, so let the muslims be as bad as they want' thing - ok.  sure.  Stick with that if it suits you.

 

First off - was there any concepts of holy war within christinanity prior to the crusades?  As far as I know, there was not.  In fact, I am convinced that war in the name of God is the one most influencial contribution of islam towards the western world and christinianity as a whole.  islam has always, since the onset of its foundation, waged war in the name of allah (God), whereas prior to the crusades, christinianity did not (they waged war with the belief that God would protect them, preserve them, but not to my knowledge because God wanted or ordered it).

 

I find that hard to believe.

 

 

 

The crusades were a legitimate defense on behalf of the Christian world in defense against ilsam which for centuries unpon centuries prior had never ceased to conquer Christian lands.  I for one regret many attrocities committed during the crusades, but do not regret the crusades themselves.  And if you look back at the wording of JP the Great's aplogies of the crusades, he does precisely that; aplogize for attrocities committed during the crusades, but not apologize for teh crusades themselves.

 

 

 

Ture - what was done can be done again, and we should guard ourselves from it, Christians and all.  We Christians for the last 100 or 200 years, have indeed guarded ourselves fairly well and for the most part strive to continuously improve, and condemned every foul action of hour history as we find them.  When has any islamic nation, organisation, religious group or whatever apologized for attacking and conquering a christian land?  Has any amongst them apologize for pilagging northern Africa?  Spain?  Constantinople?  Even though they were clearly the attackers and conquerors?   

 

There currently isn't a central agreed upon figure-head in Islam to apologize for all Muslims.

 

 

True, we need to love our ennemies; does that mean to allow ourselves unconditionallly to be executed by them?  We, as Christians have a duty of self preservation as well, adn a right to defend ourselves.  We should not seek nor desire the death of our ennemies, but in self defense if this should be required, them this would be considered the lesser evil.  This is a particular Christian theology question in itself, and may be better suited in its own thread.  I know there are already plenty of threads discussing it already.

 

I find it interesting that your argument is very similar to the ones I hear from Muslims defending Muhammad's wars. You bring up good points but keep in mind that facts and events can be easily twisted to justify immoral acts.

 

 

The crusades were a legitimate defense on behalf of the Christian world in defense against ilsam which for centuries unpon centuries prior had never ceased to conquer Christian lands.  I for one regret many attrocities committed during the crusades, but do not regret the crusades themselves.  And if you look back at the wording of JP the Great's aplogies of the crusades, he does precisely that; aplogize for attrocities committed during the crusades, but not apologize for teh crusades themselves.

 

Using God to rally people to kill is wrong, regardless of the reasoning. They could have (and did) use other incentives to recruit soldiers. The Crusades weren't as much about religion as we like to pretend they were.

 

 

 

 

Ture - what was done can be done again, and we should guard ourselves from it, Christians and all.  We Christians for the last 100 or 200 years, have indeed guarded ourselves fairly well and for the most part strive to continuously improve, and condemned every foul action of hour history as we find them.  When has any islamic nation, organisation, religious group or whatever apologized for attacking and conquering a christian land?  Has any amongst them apologize for pilagging northern Africa?  Spain?  Constantinople?  Even though they were clearly the attackers and conquerors? 

You bring up a good point. There are Muslims who proudly identify with those conquerors, but many don't. As I brought up above, Islam doesn't have a central figure-head like the Pope to apologize for these missteps.

 

 

True, we need to love our ennemies; does that mean to allow ourselves unconditionallly to be executed by them?  We, as Christians have a duty of self preservation as well, adn a right to defend ourselves.  We should not seek nor desire the death of our ennemies, but in self defense if this should be required, them this would be considered the lesser evil.  This is a particular Christian theology question in itself, and may be better suited in its own thread.  I know there are already plenty of threads discussing it already.

 

Clerics should stay away from politics and war whenever possible, or else you get flooped up poo like children clearing out minefields. The moral boundaries start to fade away when we make God a cheerleader for our wars.

 

 

 

 

Prior to your mention I did not now of any 'influencial christian' supporting genocide, so by my book they cannot be all that influencial to start with.  Any christian I would encounter with such a point of view I would adhamently oppose and I have not a single doubt that the vast majority of christians all over the world would join me in chorus.  in contrast, in the muslim and islamic world, the chorus chants 'death to the US', or kill christian missionaries because someone in a far off country printed a drawing of their acclaimed prophet and so on and so forth.  Yes there are those within the muslim communitites who oppose this position, however these are few and even afraid to speak out with their peers.

I know Christians who've said remarks pretty close to that.  We're all a lot less different than you might think.
 

POINT IN CASE:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=rh34Xsq7D_A

 

See 1:14:00 to 1:15:00

The debater actually supporting islam actually admits those who oppose violence in islam do not speak out because they are in FEAR OF THEIR LIVES!

 

The section of the clip you highlighted refers to one mosque in Pakistan. This isn't the norm. A stronger point might be that people around the world are afraid to attack Islam publicly. Muslims argue that those who might retaliate violently make up a very small minority. However, regardless of the numbers, there are still enough nuts to scare people away from doing it.

 

 

In a Christian Church, anyone who propose violence would be opposed, reported to the police, stopped by all means possible....  the categorical opposite of what is found in islam...

 

The Iraq war was supported by many clerics and I rarely hear churches rally against drone strikes.

I agree with you that Islam has serious problems that need to be addressed, like the Qur'ans potential for violent interpretation. Muftis have historically adopted the most convenient understanding of these scriptures for their circumstances. Despite this, It's a bit disingenuous to ignore the peaceful interpretations that a healthy majority prefer. 

Edited April 4, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Kia ora]

 

 

OK so still on that 'christians are bad, so let the muslims be as bad as they want' thing - ok.  sure.  Stick with that if it suits you.

 

 

 

 

as someone who believes in jesus christ, my harshest criticisms are for those who claim to follow jesus and then fail at doing that. and worse, point to their neighbours as if that will save them. we are all sinners. there is not ONE of us who is righteous. who are you to throw stones at others, sinner?

 

First off - was there any concepts of holy war within christinanity prior to the crusades?  As far as I know, there was not.  In fact, I am convinced that war in the name of God is the one most influencial contribution of islam towards the western world and christinianity as a whole.  islam has always, since the onset of its foundation, waged war in the name of allah (God), whereas prior to the crusades, christinianity did not (they waged war with the belief that God would protect them, preserve them, but not to my knowledge because God wanted or ordered it).

the theology of holy war was a development from the just war theory that was already there from christianity in its early days, as developed by people like st. augustine.

 

 

war in the name of god has a long long history before islam, noticeably in jewish holy war theology. no crusade historian believes that christian holy war theology came from islam (i read a lot of literature on the crusades,  it's one of my recurring interests). we can trace the geneology of christian holy war back to native christian roots, and it has no islamic antecedents, as far as we know. pope gregory vii was an influential developer of holy war theology for example.

 

 

The crusades were a legitimate defense on behalf of the Christian world in defense against ilsam which for centuries unpon centuries prior had never ceased to conquer Christian lands.  I for one regret many attrocities committed during the crusades, but do not regret the crusades themselves.  And if you look back at the wording of JP the Great's aplogies of the crusades, he does precisely that; aplogize for attrocities committed during the crusades, but not apologize for teh crusades themselves.

turn the other cheek. what is that, empty words? WHO is jesus? is he someone we merely accept sometimes when it's convenient and safe for us to accept him, and other times not? better to die than to kill.

 

 

 

Ture - what was done can be done again, and we should guard ourselves from it, Christians and all.  We Christians for the last 100 or 200 years, have indeed guarded ourselves fairly well and for the most part strive to continuously improve, and condemned every foul action of hour history as we find them.  When has any islamic nation, organisation, religious group or whatever apologized for attacking and conquering a christian land?  Has any amongst them apologize for pilagging northern Africa?  Spain?  Constantinople?  Even though they were clearly the attackers and conquerors?  

  don't get all righteous on me, because no one has a leg to stand on. western christians have not repented, it's all good to  say sorry (and how often do western christians do that...not very often!) but when it comes down to it, they still live on the proceeds of the dispossession, murder and colonial injustice of their forebears and in the present. i wonder how many first worlders think about where their clothes come from and then heard about the disaster in bangladesh and then went right on buying their cheap clothes. i wonder how many think about the rampant capitalist injustices that they are wreaking upon the world. but hey who cares about our wrongs when our neighbour is worse, let me cast the first stone! omnia ad gloriam dei maiorem!

 

 

the trouble with you is that when i look at a muslim person, i see a muslim person. i don't see the representative of a millenia long war. i don't see a civilisational enemy to me. i don't see an enemy of christ,i see a fellow human being, i see a person who believes in god like me and whose religion is an integral part of who they are, not someone who is incidentally good because of their religion. i would much rather have a muslim person who is good because they follow muhammad than a christian who is bad because they follow christ.

 

since i see christ in them, i have a duty to treat and think of that person like i would treat and think of christ. and also how christ would think of them.

 

 

True, we need to love our ennemies; does that mean to allow ourselves unconditionallly to be executed by them?  We, as Christians have a duty of self preservation as well, adn a right to defend ourselves.  We should not seek nor desire the death of our ennemies, but in self defense if this should be required, them this would be considered the lesser evil.  This is a particular Christian theology question in itself, and may be better suited in its own thread.  I know there are already plenty of threads discussing it already.

what did the martyrs do? like sheep to the slaughter, lead by our shepherd.

 

 

 

 

Prior to your mention I did not now of any 'influencial christian' supporting genocide, so by my book they cannot be all that influencial to start with.  Any christian I would encounter with such a point of view I would adhamently oppose and I have not a single doubt that the vast majority of christians all over the world would join me in chorus.  in contrast, in the muslim and islamic world, the chorus chants 'death to the US', or kill christian missionaries because someone in a far off country printed a drawing of their acclaimed prophet and so on and so forth.  Yes there are those within the muslim communitites who oppose this position, however these are few and even afraid to speak out with their peers.

POINT IN CASE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh34Xsq7D_A

 

See 1:14:00 to 1:15:00

The debater actually supporting islam actually admits those who oppose violence in islam do not speak out because they are in FEAR OF THEIR LIVES!

 

In a Christian Church, anyone who propose violence would be opposed, reported to the police, stopped by all means possible....  the categorical opposite of what is found in islam...

 

 

no we don't justify our violent actions with christianity any longer, we don't believe in christ enough to do that anymore, what we do instead is call ourselves christians and then go right on killing and stealing while neatly separating the two. how many american christians cheered when the death of bin laden was announced.

 

and i was talking about the bible. how many christians would condemn the bible for supporting the genocide of the canaanites?

[NotreDame]

1. A more appropriate title may be "Violent Ideology in Islamic Theology" or something like that. There are qualities of Islam that make it an especially convenient vehicle for violent interpretation. Other religions are not as "available." Pacisficm is central to Jainism. The jews were interested in territorial conquest but were indifferent to conversion. Jesus gave a personal example of nonviolence, told his disciples to sheath their swords, and advised a separation of religion and state.

 

Islam has a mix of war tradition, zeal for conversion and a distinct theology about religion and politics as a unitary dimension - all of which make it partiuclarly vulnerable to people who want to make use of it for violent political demonstrations.

 

As a Christian, I believe that Islam is not a revealed religion.  I assume you believe the same. Therefore, for us, there is no "authentic" interpretation of Islamic scripture. Islam in fact teaches only whatever the Muslims choose to believe it teaches. Some of them believe it teaches peace, some of them violence. Islamic teaching, based as it is on a man-made religion, has no essential properties - peaceful, violent, or whatever.

 

So what in your opinion is the difference between religion and ideology?  And can ideologies have "essential properties" (or maybe a better word is "propensities") that result from them being followed?
 

[Lilllabettt]

So what in your opinion is the difference between religion and ideology?  And can ideologies have "essential properties" (or maybe a better word is "propensities") that result from them being followed?
 

 

I'm thinking about how best to answer your question.

 

Probably the best way is to talk about the elements of true religion. (I don't mean "the" true religion, but what constitutes a religion that actually qualifies as representative of a genuine religious impulse). You know, the saying that there is no true religion without sacrifice -  I concur. 

 

But I think the key difference is transcendence. Ideology does not have time for transcendence - it is totalizing on a materialistic level. True religion sees the world fundamentally as a mystery.  That  fact puts the brakes on a lot of crap.

 

For ideology the world is a known quantity - the script is written and what remains is following the script - the more lockstep and uniform the better. Basically, true religion opens the mind through transcendence, ideology closes it. Which is why as true religion becomes purer it humanizes. As ideology becomes purer it degrades humanity.

 

thinking of examples ...

 

how about paradox. The human ability to ponder and resolve a paradox is a direct result of our creation in the divine image (in my opinion). Ideology hates paradox. It can't stand the dissonance. It insists on one way of making meaning from the world. Whereas true religion embraces transcendence and can grasp the unifying factor in an infinite number of ways of making meaning.

 

I don't believe in a "true" ideology. I don't believe in ideology period. So there is no such thing to me, on a metaphysical level, as "real" Marxism, Islamism, Libertarianism, anarchism, etc. Men make up what their ideologies mean as they go. Now they can have pronounced characteristics that I can recognize in the present moment. But 100 years from now they may be calling themselves the same thing but doing something else.

 

 

[Socrates]

Respectfully,  I don't think lobbing the term "racist" at someone without any support constitutes an argument.  Further, I think using the term and then refusing to justify it's use is certainly evasive.  Were it the only time it's been done I may have overlooked it, but since Hasan has done the same to me previously I chose not to ignore it.  

 

Trying to dismiss any criticism of Islam (or, for that matter, any other un-pc opinion or idea) by screaming "racist!" is cheap and dishonest, not to mention tired and boring.

 

I know Hasan has tried to argue that a religion can constitute a "race," but interestingly, I've yet to hear any liberal or leftist accuse anti-Catholics, anti-Christians, or people critical of Christian religion, of being "racist."

[4588686]

Trying to dismiss any criticism of Islam (or, for that matter, any other un-pc opinion or idea) by screaming "racist!" is cheap and dishonest, not to mention tired and boring.

 

I know Hasan has tried to argue that a religion can constitute a "race," but interestingly, I've yet to hear any liberal or leftist accuse anti-Catholics, anti-Christians, or people critical of Christian religion, of being "racist."

 

 

I've said on this forum that anti-Catholicism is a real thing.  In fact I've drawn direct parallels on this forum between the way that many of the discussions about Islam and Muslims parallel the anti-Catholic that dominated so much American discourse during the 19th century.  

 

That does not mean that every criticism of every interpretation of Catholicism or Islam is racist or bigoted.  I've had to work near a Salafi mosque before where members of the Mosuqe were taught that they had a duty to fight non-Muslims and Muslims who aligned themselves with non-Muslims. That's obviously an extremely negative belief and one that people should combat.  

[Aloysius]

dude, hasan, stop being such a troll.  gosh.

[4588686]

dude, hasan, stop being such a troll.  gosh.

 

 

Sorry.  Kant halp it :'(

[Socrates]

I've said on this forum that anti-Catholicism is a real thing.  In fact I've drawn direct parallels on this forum between the way that many of the discussions about Islam and Muslims parallel the anti-Catholic that dominated so much American discourse during the 19th century.  

 

That does not mean that every criticism of every interpretation of Catholicism or Islam is racist or bigoted.  I've had to work near a Salafi mosque before where members of the Mosuqe were taught that they had a duty to fight non-Muslims and Muslims who aligned themselves with non-Muslims. That's obviously an extremely negative belief and one that people should combat.  

 

I never claimed you deny the reality of anti-Catholicism or anti-Christianity, or that you agree with or endorse all of it.

 

Just pointed out that you (and other leftists) never use the inane "racist" line in that regard.

 

It's a cheap emotional tactic to silence debate, and should be retired.

 

As far as I've seen, nobody said anything actually racist here.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Socrates

[NotreDame]

I never claimed you deny the reality of anti-Catholicism or anti-Christianity, or that you agree with or endorse all of it.

 

Just pointed out that you (and other leftists) never use the inane "racist" line in that regard.

 

It's a cheap emotional tactic to silence debate, and should be retired.

 

As far as I've seen, nobody said anything actually racist here.

 

Actually, he has denied Catholics face anything beyond "mild alienation":

 

I'm not denying that, at times, conservative Catholics do face mild alienation from segments of the population.  That is certainly true.  What I find obnoxious is the attempt to draw a strong analogue between this mild alienation and the homophobia and legal discrimination that many gay people face today.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/133305-im-coming-out/?p=2660143

 

[4588686]

I never claimed you deny the reality of anti-Catholicism or anti-Christianity, or that you agree with or endorse all of it.

 

Just pointed out that you (and other leftists) never use the inane "racist" line in that regard.

 

It's a cheap emotional tactic to silence debate, and should be retired.

 

As far as I've seen, nobody said anything actually racist here.

 

 

If you're talking about the variant of American Catholicism that existed prior to Catholic populations assimilating/being assimilated into American society then I would certainly classify that as racism.  Again, in both cases, (with Catholics and Muslims) racism is admittedly an imprecise term.  But our concept of race is ambiguous as well so I'm fine with that.  

[4588686]

And there are populations in the world and even in the US where sentiment towards Catholics reaches the level of a variant of racism.  

 

 

[Seven77]

 I think there many Muslims that eat peas and other green vegetables. Maybe some Muslim kids don't particularly care for peas but they are probably in the minority. Let's not generalize… just because some Muslims despise peas, it does not mean that Islam is not a religion of peas.