Islam: Religion Of Peace?

[4588686]

Not that Orthodoxy caused the killing (although institutionally, the Serbian Orthodox Church bears a great deal of moral responsibility for sanctioning the more vile expressions of Serbian nationalism that undergirded the conflict).  That would be as silly as claiming that Islam causes people to engage in violence.  Two girls I worked with were Bosnian Serbs and their family is well connected to the Serbian Church.  Both of their father's stayed, even as Bosnian Serb forces appeared on the mountain ridges overlooking Zenica, and fought with the Muslim residents because they recognized that the genocide was wrong.  Obviously Christianity generically is not the causal factor there.  Neither is Islam.  They're both as benign or dangerous as their followers make them.  

[Didacus]

Islam, a religion with a billion adherents of a dizzying variety of sects and beliefs, is really not comparable to the Third Reich in any way. But congrats on winning that award they give to whoever first drags the Nazis into an internet thread.

 

I disagree; the two are comparable and even equivalent in many ways.

Both do not tolerate dissention under penalty of death for example.

Both are convinced of their right to rule the earth, exclusively.

Both are political organisations (islam makes no excuses for being as much a political system as it is a religion).

I could go on...  but if you are convinced that islam is just 'another religion', then it would really be kinda pointless.
 

[4588686]

 

Another time I asked 'I thought your religion did not tolerate democracy?' and he only said that he 'kinda disagreed with that' but 'did not want to explain' which leads me to think that he knows the teachings of islam, but does not want to apply them and cannot make excuses for them because he knows them too well. 

 

 

 

Or maybe he was put off by your intense lack of professionalism.  That's a completely inappropriate question for you do ask somebody you're supervising.  

[Didacus]

1. The National Liberation Front of Tripura, is a Christian insurgent nationalist group

2. Warriors of Christ the King, a now defunt facist guerilla Christion group

3. The Catholic Reaction Force in Ireland that went after Protestants 

4. God's Army in Burma, another guerilla group

5. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and Sudan 

 

It's funny how some some Christians like to pretend this never happens. 

 

The big difference with Christinaity and islam is that Christianity will condemn these groups and their actions, while islam endorses their terrorist groups.

It is much easier to look into the Koran (hundreds of verses alogn with the life of muhammed) and find justification for violence than to look at the life of Jesus and find likewise justification to violence.

[4588686]

I disagree; the two are comparable and even equivalent in many ways.

Both do not tolerate dissention under penalty of death for example.

 

 

 

You are aware that heresy was punishable by death in Christendom until relatively recently, right?

 

I agree that the free speech rights in much of the Muslim world are extremely deficient.  However talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  

[Didacus]

Not at all.  It's human nature that people will step in and react if their authorities don't protect them and that they will do so poorly, which is what I said. 

 

Human nature, or just common sense.

 

I must say again though... don't feed the troll.  One has to wonder why hasan even posts on phatmass at all.

[4588686]

Human nature, or just common sense.

 

I must say again though... don't feed the troll.  One has to wonder why hasan even posts on phatmass at all.

 

 

Because many of the people here are friends of mine or at least intelligent and interesting people whose thoughts I enjoy reading.  People like you are, thankfully, in the minority.  

[4588686]

1826 was when the last heretic was put to death by the Church's Inqusition, by the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayetano_Ripoll

[Selah]

The big difference with Christinaity and islam is that Christianity will condemn these groups and their actions, while islam endorses their terrorist groups.

 

 

 

Muslims condemn their actions. 

 

 

It is much easier to look into the Koran (hundreds of verses alogn with the life of muhammed) and find justification for violence than to look at the life of Jesus and find likewise justification to violence.

 

 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

 

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/l10exdom.htm

 

List of errors Pope Leo X wrote to refute Martin Luther include: "That heretics be burned is against the will of the spirit" (something that has been discussed here before, by a certain someone who commented that he was all for it).

 

Do you want me to give you quotes by Aquinas, about the killing of heretics because "better the body than the soul"? Or the massacre of the Carthars and that they should "kill them all and let God sort it out" ?

 

[4588686]

The big difference with Christinaity and islam is that Christianity will condemn these groups and their actions, while islam endorses their terrorist groups.

 

 

Right.  So, again, we have the category error.  Neither 'Christianity' nor 'Islam' endorse anything.  Individual Christians or Muslims can have opinions, however.  

[Selah]

From my links: "No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful"

 

The idea that it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics is destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive 

 

You can't ignore this, I am sorry. Yes, Islam is responsible for horrible things; but so is Christianity. It's not as if we are not guilty. Christians in India walk around with AK 47s and force conversion. This stuff still happens today. It's wrong. We know it's wrong. But Muslims know that Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are wrong. You do know that terrorists kill their own, right? And Muslims also suffer persecution in the Middle East too, along with Christians, right? Especially Sufis and the Druze. They are pretty much treated like free game. 

Edited March 23, 2014 by Selah

[4588686]

The points may be flawed but they do demonstrate a point.  So the 18,000 number may not be the exact number - I for one do not care for the precise number.  The point is that islam around the world is at the source of far more violence than any other group.

 

 

 

And you base that on what?  I mean, you claim to be an engineer, which usually is accompanied by strong analytical skills, do you honestly not see the circularity of this statement?  You don't know the numbers but that's not the point because 'Islam' is the source of more violence than any other group.  And since you don't know the numbers you support this statement with….what, exactly?  You made a clear empirical claim.  Let's see your numbers to back it up.  

[Aloysius]

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.  and I believe they do so quite effectively. his point about a category error is important especially because we all agree here that Islam is a human construct, a false religion, and therefore it is only as good or as bad as the people make it.  there are tons of Muslims out there who would argue against your interpretation of Islam... in fact the interpretation you are arguing in favor for is the interpretation that Islamist militants argue for... strange bedfellows... imagine today there were people out there trying to burn heretics at the stake and the large majority of Christians were against it, and some outsider came in and brought up all the vast plethora of quotes from Christian history to argue that those who argued against burning heretics at the stake were not being good enough Christians, that it was inherent to Christianity to do so, that those who argued for doing so were the correct ones.

 

honestly, your smoking question just seems to reinforce my scratching-of-my-head at why you insist upon defining Islam... you seem to be trying to argue that Muslims should follow Islam more strictly?  but we don't believe in Islam... if everything you said was 100% true rather than a selective reading of Islam, then why would you be standing up trying to argue that Muslims who disagree with those things are wrong?  if I saw a Mormon drinking a coke, or a Muslim eating some pork, I'd just shrug my shoulders... maybe I'd be curious, and I'm sure this is where your question came from (but it's a good emblematic question to illustrate the point about the much bigger violence question), I'd be curious if they were following their conscience or not.  if they're breaking their conscience by eating pork or drinking a coke, that's a problem, but if all they're doing is violating some norm of a religion I don't even believe in anyway, then more power to them.

 

just remember, there are a whole bunch of Muslims out there who would hate and condemn Islamist terrorism, who themselves live in fear of Islamist terrorism... heck, the success of General Sisi's public campaign in Egypt of labeling everyone who supported the Muslim Brotherhood as a "terrorist" in a way that would've made George W. Bush blush shows that pretty well.  your argument seems to be that those Muslims are not being true enough to their religion.  to which I say: fine, whatever... for one you're not an authentic interpreter of their religion... if they want to reject violence and us Christians want to reject the Noahide dietary laws so we can eat blood pudding and say that those who burned heretics at the stake in our history were wrong to do so, then all the better.  does that make them bad Muslims?  I don't know, as far as I'm concerned Islam is an incorrect religion and therefore there cannot be a good or a bad Muslim.  are we bad Christians if we eat blood pudding and don't burn heretics at the stake?  I don't think so.  and if some outsider who didn't even believe in my religion came in and said so I'd be pretty bothered.

 

to end on a happy note: here's the Catholic Church in Africa protecting Muslims from other Christians who are on a murderous rampage:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/24/why_catholic_priests_are_protecting_muslims_in_the_central_african_republic.html

[Selah]

 

to end on a happy note: here's the Catholic Church in Africa protecting Muslims from other Christians who are on a murderous rampage:
http://www.slate.com...n_republic.html

 

 

And Muslims later returned the favor

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/muslims-form-human-chain-pakistan_n_4057381.html

[NotreDame]

The tie is actually extremely very strong.  In the Balkans religious and ethnic identity are intertwined and the Orthodox Church is central to Serbian national identity. 

 

Extremely very strong tie to the orthodox church, huh?  So I guess the General that got convicted of genocide was just a fake communist all those years?