Islam: Religion Of Peace?

[Lilllabettt]

Ahab, considered as the worst king of Israel, was never accused of atrocities similar to what committed Muhamed.

 

Furthermore, no one to my knowledge follows the kings of Israel's examples as infallible example of a prophet who proclaimed the orders of God on a word per word basis and follow these instructions as beyond reproach, perfect, beyond criticism.

 

I am familiar with the version of 'religion of peace' you iterate, and it is a mighty nice ideology.  One I can agree to.  Now if you don't like the wording in the title then what would you prefer then?  Something in the line of 'Muhamed's inspired philosophy as written in the Koran dictates violence and oppression on non-muslims?'    Let me know the wording you want, but please don't hide behind mere terminologies to avoid the real issues or the debate all together.  If you don't want to discuss it, then don't post; plain and simple.

 

 

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.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Didacus]

Muslims condemn their actions. 

 

 

 

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" ?

 

When were these last used by Christianity to justify any violent acts?

Last person to be executed by the Catholic Church was when?

 

When was the last time someone died in the name of islam and its teachings based on the koran?  Last week?  yesterday?

 

Christianity has changed and evolved a great deal since the days of Luther and Aquinas.  I am not convinced of the same on behalf of the muslim world.

 

 

Those within islam who condemn the actions of violence are precious few compared to those who even today justify and endorse violence.  Any search of common platforms like even youtube will make this self-evident.

 
 

[Didacus]

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.  

 

Just to make something clear to everyone here; I am not supervising this individual and asking this question is indeed in line with mentoring.

hasan, as usual, is just batting at the useless troll he is.

[Didacus]

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. 

 

I would like to know a bit more about Christians in India 'walking around with AK-47' - link?

 

Just a question; would the pope and the Catholic Church approve or disapprove their actions?  If the reply is no, then the majority of Christian authority do not support their actions.  I remain, again, unconvinced that islam and muslims teach the same on the majority, in fact, I remain quite convinced of the opposite that most of their faithful and authority figures teach quite the opposite of 'peace' altogether. 

 

Finally, the fact that some Christians may be violent does not excuse muslims from being violent at an equal or greater scale.
 

[Didacus]

True, but to be fair anyone can commit an atrocity in the name of x, y, or z. Regardless I've come to believe or at least consider that there's something more besides religious ideology at play. Because from what I gather this ideology is primarily rooted in the Middle East. I've never heard, or gotten the impression, from American-born Muslims that violence is the way to go.

 

There is a Canadian that was kept in Guantanamo prison.  Born and raised in Canada, muslim, and for some reason decided to travel to Iraq (or Afghanistan... I forget, don't really care) and his intent to kill as many Canadians and their allies as he possibly could.  I guess he needed something to do.  He was capture by Americans after he threw a grenade at them.

 

His (the young man's islamic) community where shocked that Canada was not doing more to bring this poor misunderstood traitor home.  My opinion, the only way I would support bringing home such a traitor would be so he could spend the rest of his life in jail, no chance of parole, along with rapists and murderers and other like-wise criminals of society.  But that's just me.

 

He is by far not the only one either.  North of Toronto some islamic terrorists camps were dismantled.  They had plotted to kill the Prime Minister (kinda like the Canadian president for those of you unfamiliar) and they also were planning bombings of Canadian monuments.  The members of the group were quite numerous and had been operating on Canadian soil for years, perhaps even decades.

 

Keep your blinders on all you want, but these stories are common, EVEN IN THE LIBERAL PRESS THAT USUAL COVER THEM UP!

Keep thinking that islam doesn't pose a problem and the teachings are just 'fine', or 'irrelevantly violent because Christianity is just as violent'.

[Didacus]

joshua was worse than muhammad by far. so too moses.

 

is there a christian here willing to slap joshua and moses across the face for following the words of god?

 

Again - Moses and Joshua are not taken as the guiding examples to be emulated by Jews or Christians the way muhammed is expected to be followed and emulated in his every action and decisions.

 

King David is seen as one of the greatest kings of Israel; yet he committed acts tantamount to murder and adultery.  He repented eventually though.  These biblical characters can be criticised and are not expected to be imitated in their failings.  However, muhammed is seen as giving a perfect example and all his actions are acceptable and to be imitated.  How many girls aged 9 and 10 years old are forced into marriage with men in their 30s and 40s in the Islamic world today?  All in the image of muhammed?

[Kia ora]

Again - Moses and Joshua are not taken as the guiding examples to be emulated by Jews or Christians the way muhammed is expected to be followed and emulated in his every action and decisions.

 

King David is seen as one of the greatest kings of Israel; yet he committed acts tantamount to murder and adultery.  He repented eventually though.  These biblical characters can be criticised and are not expected to be imitated in their failings.  However, muhammed is seen as giving a perfect example and all his actions are acceptable and to be imitated.  How many girls aged 9 and 10 years old are forced into marriage with men in their 30s and 40s in the Islamic world today?  All in the image of muhammed?

 

You're skipping the most important part. The Bible, hey let me repeat that, the BIBLE says that GOD was the one who ordered GENOCIDE. Moses may not be taken as a guiding example for Christians, but God himself?\

 

How many people here would criticise Moses and Joshua as monsters for having FOLLOWED God?

 

The astonishing thing is that I've actually seen Christians defend genocide, as if Jesus would ever have found it acceptable to annihilate your enemies and not turn the other cheek. Christians are shamelessly hypocritical if they criticise Muhammad and don't find their own holy text far more disturbing.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Kia ora

[Fidei Defensor]

You're skipping the most important part. The Bible, hey let me repeat that, the BIBLE says that GOD was the one who ordered GENOCIDE. Moses may not be taken as a guiding example for Christians, but God himself?\

 

How many people here would criticise Moses and Joshua as monsters for having FOLLOWED God?

 

The astonishing thing is that I've actually seen Christians defend genocide, as if Jesus would ever have found it acceptable to annihilate your enemies and not turn the other cheek. Christians are shamelessly hypocritical if they criticise Muhammad and don't find their own holy text far more disturbing.

God giveth and God taketh away.

[Didacus]

You're skipping the most important part. The Bible, hey let me repeat that, the BIBLE says that GOD was the one who ordered GENOCIDE. Moses may not be taken as a guiding example for Christians, but God himself?\

 

How many people here would criticise Moses and Joshua as monsters for having FOLLOWED God?

 

The astonishing thing is that I've actually seen Christians defend genocide, as if Jesus would ever have found it acceptable to annihilate your enemies and not turn the other cheek. Christians are shamelessly hypocritical if they criticise Muhammad and don't find their own holy text far more disturbing.

 

First Off:

Moses is just as much a prophet in the bible as he is in the koran as far as I know – correct me if I’m wrong.  So not quite sure what it is you’re getting at here.

 

Second:

Kudos for only saying that I am a hypocrite and not falling into calling me a racist (racism does not apply since islam is not a race, actually I don’t believe that so much as discrimination applies since I am not even suggesting to give islam any disadvantage or detriment).

 

Third:

Thus far, for the most part, this thread has turned on the logic of <Christianity is just as bad as islam, so leave poor little islam alone>.  This is in my opinion a very weak argument.

To this I would simply like to point out that any failing of behalf of Christianity does not excuse any failings on the part of islam.  Furthermore, removing any reference point from within Christianity, islam remains in its teachings outright violent and discriminate towards any non-muslims rendering non-muslim to either being humiliated to second class citizens (or second class humans beings) or being executed and this as a matter of infallible command within the koran. 

 

Fourth:

On behalf of Joshua and Moses committing genocide under the order of God; as pointed out by Tardis above, God may give, and He may take away.  I would not criticize God for giving such a command, nor anyone for following God’s command.  Feel free to do so if you want to.

 

Fifth:

Not being a bible scholar, I would like to enquire on a few points;

What do Christians learn and teach one another from Moses and Joshua’s example?

Do those Christians who you claim defend genocide are representative of any formal teachings of any Christian denomination?  (whereas I would point out that islam has entire nations calling for the destructions of the US and the Christian world and such ‘teachings’ takes root directly in the koran and is upheld by countless of their ‘scholars’).

What does the CCC say about genocide?

 

Finally:

Have you read how the UN defines genocide?  Correlate this definition to what muslims are doing to Christians as a matter of law in countries such as Egypt or Turkey?  I assure you that a very real argument can be made that several genocides are currently being committed in the present day just as much as Israel is committing genocide against muslims towards Palestine.  How many Christians denomination or nation in the world today are explicitly engaged in genocide and do so openly and attempt to justify their actions?

[Didacus]

And Muslims later returned the favor

 

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

 

I am aware of this example and it does give me genuine hope that human compassion is stronger than anything the devil may throw at us.  This is the most genuine, honest and meaningful act I have heard of muslims posing towards christians and indeed demonstrates that even though islam may be riddled within the koran with hateful and destructive passages and teachings, that such teachings are not necessarily learned as such by those who read the book.

[Didacus]

I for one appreciate Hasan's comments, they are neither trollish nor evasive.. <snip> ...who argued for doing so were the correct ones.

 

honestly, your smoking question just seems to reinforce ...<snip> ...norm of a religion I don't even believe in anyway, then more power to them.

 

just remember, there are ... <snip>....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

 

Hasan provides nothing constructive nor serious to any discussion I have seen on this forum.  I remain puzzled as to why he insists on investing his time to waste everyone else's time.  He is a troll, and nothing more.

 

 

 

 

I am not saying that muslims should follow islam more strictly.  If that's what you want to read into it, then fine - our conversation is at an end.  What I am trying to say, is that in the koran (and islam) there are teachings/instructions/commands however you want to call these verses which are outright violent, hateful and dsicriminatory towards non-muslims.  For instance; the koran you read is organized from the shortest book to the longest, however, the authorative verses in the koran are held as the later versus superceding the earlier verses - such that the oldest verses (aka, the last verses written) are the most authorative since no other verse comes after them.  The final book (second longest of the koran) in the koran is thus the most authorative, and in it is specifically states numerous allarming things such as; a muslim CANNOT have a non-muslim as a friend, a muslim MUST lie if this is useful to protect and spread islam, a muslim can take whatever he deems as needing from a non-muslim regardless of the state of the non-muslim and the list goes on and on and on.  These are not written as parraboles or nice little stories or littel suggestions - these are written as outright THOU SHALT type verse and leave very little to interpretation.  (and remember, this is the most authorative book in the koran... 

 

In fact, the statement from the final book in the koran not requesting but ORDERING muslims to lie in order to protect and spread the islamic faith is a key reason why I am always a little skeptical of muslims syaing that ilsam is a religion of love and peace.  I do not understand how someone aware of this could prevent from being somewhat skeptical of what muslims claim of their own beliefs.

 

 

 

As for your middle point, I honestly believe that religion, even Christianity, is nothing more than a tool to bring one's self closer to God.  I also genuinely believe that many a good person even though following an islamic faith can and do suceed in this aim.  Furthermore I will readily admit that God retains importance - comparatively, religion is but a simple detail, a mere path taken to the destination.  I do not believe this view point is very far from teh truth - go ahead and throw another rock at me if you will, just make sure not to cut in line of people waiting ofr their turn while doing so.

What I am concerned about is a faith (which is actually, and admittingly just as much if not more so a politicfal movement than a religion) which has in its objective openly and blatently offering me and my family three choioces; convert, be so humiliated that you submit to the will of islam or be executed (not to mention all those little side perks like anit-democracy or taking whatever they 'need' from me as a right without reuqiring justification and being held as a 'pig' or 'dog').  That view point, I have an issue with.  Someone in front of me having this view does cause me to have an issue person with the person per say, but I do have an issue with the person's beliefs and how these beliefs can be damaging to me and the people I love.  It is my sincere conviction that holding this view does not make me a 'racist' or any other distastful name calling that many of you defecate, it is only common sense. 

It is common sense that if someone believes it is their goal to convert, humiliate or kill you that you guard yourself against such beliefs - anyone who says claims otherwise are either miseguided, simple minded or lunatics (I cannot see any other possibility).

[Kia ora]

Fifth:

Not being a bible scholar, I would like to enquire on a few points;

What do Christians learn and teach one another from Moses and Joshua’s example?

Do those Christians who you claim defend genocide are representative of any formal teachings of any Christian denomination?  (whereas I would point out that islam has entire nations calling for the destructions of the US and the Christian world and such ‘teachings’ takes root directly in the koran and is upheld by countless of their ‘scholars’).

What does the CCC say about genocide?

 

 

 

the crusades. used to be a big part of catholicism, holy war theology was preached by influential catholic theologians and was behind the policy of several popes. 

 

it was defended and justified theologically on the basis of violent passages in the bible, such as the genocide waged by the biblical prophets against their enemies. what was once done can be done again, which is why we should always turn to christ, and christ ordered us to put down the sword. if god is the same for all ages, then he could not have ordered the israelites to do such a thing. we are supposed to LOVE our enemies, not kill them.

 

there are influential christians like william lane craig who defend the genocide described in the bible. 

Edited April 3, 2014 by Kia ora

[Kia ora]

Fourth:

On behalf of Joshua and Moses committing genocide under the order of God; as pointed out by Tardis above, God may give, and He may take away.  I would not criticize God for giving such a command, nor anyone for following God’s command.  Feel free to do so if you want to.

 

yeah i  will, how can you listen to christ's sermon on the mount, heck any of his teaching, and then think that the genocide described in the bible, ordered by god, is okay? tell me how.

[Didacus]

the crusades. used to be a big part of catholicism, holy war theology was preached by influential catholic theologians and was behind the policy of several popes. 

 

it was defended and justified theologically on the basis of violent passages in the bible, such as the genocide waged by the biblical prophets against their enemies. what was once done can be done again, which is why we should always turn to christ, and christ ordered us to put down the sword. if god is the same for all ages, then he could not have ordered the israelites to do such a thing. we are supposed to LOVE our enemies, not kill them.

 

there are influential christians like william lane craig who defend the genocide described in the bible. 

 

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).

 

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?   

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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...

[Didacus]

yeah i  will, how can you listen to christ's sermon on the mount, heck any of his teaching, and then think that the genocide described in the bible, ordered by god, is okay? tell me how.

 

That is between you and God...

 

 

Good luck with that....