General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRe:Brussels, it makes no sense to claim "Islam is a religion of peace"
I understand religion has a specific forum, but I am reacting to a post here, in 'General Discussion', which claimed re:Brussels that "Islam is a religion of peace"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7705340
So, as the board rules mention that "Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.", without any animus towards Muslims, I wish to just simply state why it is wrong to claim that "Islam is a religion of peace", especially in context.
First, define Islam? It's impossible. (*)
- The texts are unreliable and contradictory. Muhammad's biographies and hadiths were written about two centuries after Muhammad. The Quran contradicts itself on key tenets of doctrine (what Adam was made of, how to deal with unbelievers, etc)
- the interpretation of the texts are contradictory: from peaceful Sufis to ISIS, from gay Muslim centers to the hanging of gays in the name of Islam.
Second, can Islam be decreed peaceful?
- part of the texts incite to violence: some Quran verses and hadiths
- the way a plurality of Muslims understand Islam is not peaceful: half of the world Muslims believe their religion calls them to stone adulterers. Can this be called peaceful?
Third, in the context of Brussels, I understand part of the reason people would want to make that claim: to shield innocent Muslims from people who would advocate a blanket indiscriminate backlash. But misleading sentences do more harm than good, especially when they appear to want to exonerate an ideology from its harmful consequences.
Because the motivation of the Brussels attackers IS Islam. Their ISIS brand of Islam (*).
Wrong diagnostics do not help to find solutions. And the context of a terror attack, rushing to issue a blanket statement that "Islam is peaceful" can come across as rather insensitive.
I cringed when I saw halfwit GW say just that just after 9/11.
Peace to all.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)why not explain contradictions in the bible or just award Islam four Pinocchios and move on??? Remember that by Christian doctrine Jesus Christ is the "Prince of Peace" which makes his daddy (God) the King of Peace and he was the bastard that went all fire and brimstone smiting every fucking unbeliever in sight.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)From gay bishops to bishops supporting kill-the-gays laws in Africa, to St Paul condoning slavery, Christianity is chock-a-block with its dose of contradictions and violence.
But what has it got to do with my contention? Two wrongs don't make a right.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)is best described as worshiping their "Lord God All-Smitey". If you accept both religious precepts encourage violence you cannot then blame just one where outcomes are perceived differently. Now if you would accept that our military moves over the last decade or so could be perceived as provocative you might consider a different motive for a lack of peace...If you collaterally bombed my children to death, do you think I would suffer you to live a happy secure lifestyle??
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)But my post is not about the Torah, or the collateral damage of the inane war of GW in Iraq.
My point is simple, and I wish we stayed on topic: do you agree, especially when it's written on the day of the Brussels attacks, that there is no justification to claim that Islam is peace?
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)If you will stipulate there is NO major western "religion of peace" and that therefore your entire post is moot. My point is that a causal factor religion itself is a non-starter. Crazy hate dressed in a tuxedo is still crazy hate.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The Abrahamic religions, Hinduism are not religions of peace. Buddhism, maybe?
But I firmly disagree with your other sentence:
Try blasphemy in Saudi Arabia. Religion will be the causal factor in the violence you will suffer.
But your construct involves Belgium as the nexus of violence and I assure you blasphemy is a red herring in your argument of causation.
Since you mention Belgium and "argument of causation", refer to the third point of my OP about Islam: the violence in Brussels is directly caused by the interpretation of Islam by the supporters of ISIS. As to know whether their interpretation of that ideology of Islam is correct or not, refer to the OP's point one: nobody knows.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)Much of the middle east is a charnel house and the west as a whole is the cause. We first drew arbitrary national lines and then after various systems became established,when cheap oil became our goal, almost whimsically we destabilized them.Having spread chaos we then almost as randomly armed factions until those most non-political were driven mad. Asymmetric war is the sole option of those aggrieved by our actions and suicide bombing has long been a force multiplier. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. Belgium was a (relatively) soft target. I have no easy answer but I assure you that a mere religion didn't cause this nor is it's denigration any helpful thing.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)You mention Brussels is retaliation. Yes, retaliation for attacks on ISIS. ISIS is religiously motivated. It defines their platform: islamic state. Religion caused Brussels.
Take Charlie Hebdo in Paris: shooters kill people for drawing cartoons. Was it the Middle East and oil or was it religiously motivated? Religion caused Charlie Hebdo.
Back to my OP: it is wrong and inflammatory to say Islam is a religion of peace.
Abrahamic religions are not peaceful.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)We provoked and caused the western world to be a target. Your original thesis NEVER included other religions.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The sentence I reacted to was about Islam in the context of Brussels. Period.
In a counter-generalization of my OP, you claimed religions did not cause violence.
I gave you examples: blasphemy in Saudi Arabia, Charlie Hebdo,
but you never acknowledge proofs that religion does directly inspire gratuitous violence.
So be it.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)I was born Irish Catholic-the religious difference between me and any protestant involves how many times in a Mass one must genuflect. Do you really believe the "Troubles" and hunger strikes to the death were over that-or just like this-over past actions perceived as injustices and then "justified" by religion?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Sunni/Shia, Catholics/Protestants, arguing over how to best believe in things that are probably not there? It would be funny if it didn't cause so many deaths.
Another example as to why your claim religion does not inspire harm is wrong.
Response to Albertoo (Reply #33)
Post removed
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The Crusades, Oil and Israel are not the topic of this thread.
But even assuming you use these off-topic issues to try and claim all violence is always politically motivated, never religiously, please note you are deliberately avoiding earlier examples I gave you which prove that violence can be caused unambiguously by religion alone (blasphemy in Saudi Arabia, Charlie Hebdo, the atheist bloggers hacked to death in Bangladesh, etc)
Response to Albertoo (Reply #35)
Post removed
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)He started poorly and ended as a dumpster fire.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)He did try some good points, but ended badly
cwydro
(51,308 posts)For some reason Islam is considered untouchable by many on this board.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You'll notice that hte people writing and enforcing these laws tend to not be well-able to live up to them. It's a method the Saudi regime uses to prop itself up by keeping its own people bent over and terrified that htye, too, might end up kneeling in the dirt with a scimitar at their neck.
Hebdo and the blogger attacks are primarily about ego. "You talked shit about me, I can't abide that, so I'm going to wreck you." We see the same thing with the assaults at Trump rallies, "how DARE you challenge what I beleive and how I identify, have a boot to your face."
He's actually correct about the crusades, for what it's worth. You had an expanding empire on one side - the Caliphate - and on hte other you had European population boom (thanks to the warm period) that was reaking havoc on established politics - so the Pope beseeched the kings to send their spare men on a "holy quest" to retake Jerusalem. Net result? Rome re-asserts its political position, the established rulers free themselves of a lot of over-armed, ambitious young men, and a "shot over hte bow" is fired to a rising power.
Interestingly the Muslim world remembers the crusades about the same way the United States remembers the San Juan Pig War.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)But religion can be a political motivation in itself. It is internalized by some as an ideal which guides their lives and actions. Take Khomeini: do you think he was just power hungry? Or did he really believe in a form of religion, and believe he was acting in accordance to it?
Religion can be an evil delusion and God is not great (Dawkins meets Hitchens)
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #43)
Marr This message was self-deleted by its author.
Coventina
(26,874 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Having read your rant, my only takeaway was; meh, another bigoted let's-bash-all-Muslims thread. That IS your topic, yeah? Don't try to backpedal now and pretend that you were only gripping about the Iraq War.
Embrace your bigotry, O thou most fearless Crusader, now go forth and spread the word to the non-believers.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Could you please demonstrate to me what I contest, i.e. is Islam a religion of peace?
Does Islam preach peace only, and zero violence?
If you can show that to me, I will humbly apologize and say I was a nasty Crusader.
NB: Crusaders fight for a belief, which is not my case, but never mind that.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I am an equal opportunity religion smiter.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)What's your point?
clarice
(5,504 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Islam is believing everything Muhammad tells you to believe, no matter how stupid it is.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)there were schools of thought in Islam which said Muhammad was an imperfect human and could have erred.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Quran, so the story goes, is "perfect."
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Islamophobic bigotry is not a liberal value.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Next, kindly explain to me in what an ideology which is understood by half its practitioners as requesting the stoning of adulterers is progressive. LGBT rights in "Muslim countries"?
Skittles
(152,967 posts)it's just a matter of degree
procon
(15,805 posts)The whole War on Women is based on Christian doctrine, and the Dominionists belief that women must be controlled and they have no rights because they are are mere chattels and the property of men. Strip away my basic human rights to live my life as a free person without the interference of patriarchal religions, society and government all working in concert to diminish my very existence and force my into a life of subservient ignorance, or stone me... what a choice!
Tell me more about LGBT rights in "Muslim countries" vs LGBT rights in "Christian countries"... there's lot's of bragging rights about who is worse to go around in both camps, yet why are you only biased toward one?
Look, I'd be much more inclined to consider to your assertions as valid if you had pointed a critical finger at all organized religions that allow extremists to flourish under their brand instead of picking the most convenient evil doer based on the headlines of day.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I guess by your definition we're all on the wrong website, because apparently no liberal should criticize any belief system, ever.
Oneironaut
(5,463 posts)Both are equally ridiculous. Islam is not a religion of peace in the same way Christianity is not a religion of peace. Both have holy books that tell their followers that they should do violent things.
Saying Islam is a religion of peace is burying your head in the sand. It's never going to be true.
get the red out
(13,459 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)mwooldri
(10,291 posts)Islam is as peaceful as Christianity and Judaism. All three religions believe in the same God, yet all have differing views on Jesus of Nazareth (Jews: Messiah hasn't come yet & Jesus was a good man, Christians: Jesus is the Messiah, Muslims: Jesus isn't the Messiah but one of God's prophets). If we take the book that Christians and Jews call the book of Leviticus, and take it literally, then heck we're sinning all the way to the devil.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The Torah, the Old Testament are violent, full of obvious scientific mistakes, flagrant myths (Moses), etc, etc. One could argue the Quran (kill the infidels) is more violent than the New Testament (turn the other cheek), but it is not the point of the OP.
I am merely contradicting a claim I read here in GD and which does not stand scrutiny. I feel it's wrong, especially on the day of the Brussels attacks, to claim Islam is peace.
Unless one tackles step by step what I wrote in the OP.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Islam isn't inherently violent, either. The problem is that there are so many bigots in the world that -- without that caveat -- many will mistake your contention for Islamaphobia.
I think you could probably make an argument that strict Islamic fundamentalism and/or Wahabbism is inherently violent, but that would require lots of people (both liberal and conservative) to understand stuff they don't (actually, honestly) care about.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I would generally agree with what you wrote, in the sense it's the haters who turn religions into nightmares (but do the texts induce hateful ideas? Possibly)
With Islam arguably a more volatile and potentially dangerous mix because of the Quran sentences which are direct commands to attack non Muslims.
But anyway, my OP is merely refuting a claim which I found really irritating in context.
peace13
(11,076 posts)A billion Muslims .....if the majority weren't peaceful, you'ld be dead by now. This post is off the wall. I am only posting here so that if anyone was offended by it they will see that some of us aren't of this mindset.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)My OP is very clear: I reacted to a sentence making a claim about a religious ideology.
I merely stated the obvious, i.e. that the claim "the ideology of Islam is peaceful" is empty.
Ford F-150
(72 posts)if only 1% of that billion were radicalized that's only 10 million right? What are we afraid of?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Some of those people are inevitably assholes.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)How crazy is that, to protect silly and harmful mythologies from criticism while science and reason are routinely and freely attacked.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Religion" is basically a by-product of the fact our ancestors were tasty - and thus justly paranoid - tree-dwellers. Evolution favors a monkey that jumps away from a stick that looks like a snake more than it favors a monkey that ignores a snake that looks like a stick. This is where our species-wide tendency towards apophenia comes from. Seeing patterns in random data is a survival instinct.
It just happens that we're not particularly worried about snakes anymore. But the instinct is still there. so we see faces in the stucco patterns of a wall. We play the lottery with our "lucky numbers.' We hem and haw over what the clouds are doing. we follow astrology. We see omens in fire and cricket chirps and the yellings of crazy dudes on a street corner. It's all the same thing, and it forms this weird stew.
Combine this instinct with another one we possess - ritual - and you've got yourself a religion. (Yes, ritual is instinctive - taking communion is just a variation on two primates grooming each other. Establishing social bonds and hierarchy.) That combination is part of what helps preserve this apophenia in our species - because ritual is actually GOOD for our survival. It pulls a community closer together in hard times, bettering the collective chance of survival. apophenia just rides along, as the imeptus behind most of the rituals we practice.
You can see it for yourself. In places where human stress is highest, you will find that levels of faith are usually high, too. I'm sure maybe you've got a snide remark about "religion causing it," but no, usually the most religious are people who are not actually involved in the conflict; it's the people running the hell away who drop to their knees and bow their heads. It's a method of coping with the stress they're under, to find an "outlet" because, really, the human mind just has real difficulties coming ot turns with random shit happening to random people for no damn good reason. Kind of a self-reinforcing loop, that.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Did you draw that form a book?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)...But no, I actually use words like "apophenia" for real, because i'm a fucking word snob
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)that's partly why I return library books late
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)it really is not that difficult for a modern person to examine those beliefs to see if there is any evidence to support them. But most religious people do not want to do that -- they'd rather continue to believe in nonsense, because it is easier, and because they want to pretend an invisible sky daddy is pulling all the strings.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)It's harder to create concentration camps reading 'Paddington' than if you read 'Mein Kampf'.
Some sacred texts are pretty strong stuff.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And a great many of people have read mein kampf and felt no desire whatsoever to enact what it contains.
The key factor is whether or not a person is an asshole. An asshole can find justification and outlines in Paddington, if they wanted to. Because assholes look everywhere for justification for what they do. The trick there is that the prose of Paddington Bear doesn't really lend itself the gravitas needed to convince other people that the asshole is justified in being an asshole. if Paddington had verse like Moby Dick, who knows?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)1- one, you sure are not a literalist reader
2- two, you scare me
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's post facto justification.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Example: it would take an asshole to rip the heart of a young maiden alive. It can be incited by a religion* which would teach you it is what it takes to make sure the Sun will rise everyday. It will give justification to an asshole with psychopathic tendencies to embrace the job of high priest. But still, the text, the ritual will have demanded the sacrifice be executed.
Now, the person who invented the ritual was probably a psychopathic asshole himself, but that is the very problem of sacred texts: their inane commands live on.
* I never read about the Inca/Maya cults, so this example is for theoretical use only. I have not checked if these were real practices or smear tactics by the invading Christian missionaries.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)will continue to watch the discussion closely
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Anyway, this thread was mostly a knee-jerk reaction to a post I found insensitive in context.
In the same way GW's inane comment irritated me on 9/11.
donna123
(182 posts)I ask honestly. If someone has insight into this, that would be great. How many Indonesian or Bangladeshi Muslims have been involved in these type of attacks? Isn't the majority of Indonesia and Bangladesh Muslim? I know or knew Christians from the ME and they seemed to have a worldview shared by Muslims from the ME. They hate Israel and blame America for essentially everything. Even while they are enjoying all the privileges and comforts of living here, they are bashing the US left and right. It sickened me. I felt like saying, if you hate the US so much, why don't you leave? I feel like there is this mentality in the ME that feeds into radical Islam. Of course it isn't everyone, nothing ever is, but the majority of the population. The Quran interpreted literally sounds wacky but there's wacky stuff in the Bible too, like Lot (?) having sex with his daughters. Ummm...no. So I don't know how much is truly cultural, rather than religion.
Bucky
(53,805 posts)Muslims make up a huge proportion of prisoners in western Europe. The two bombers from yesterday were both ex-cons. This is as much about poverty as it is about religion.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)on their reactions to the terror attacks.
pampango
(24,692 posts)about all minorities?
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)makes people do anything they don't already want to do, usually for other, personal, sometimes seemingly unfathomable reasons. Whether it's suicide bombing, or persecuting homosexuals, or picketing funerals, or handling snakes, the human mind is a deeply chaotic place.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)get the red out
(13,459 posts)And I ask the same questions about Christian terrorists here. In fact, I think the extremist-Christians who attack Family Planning clinics, for instance, prove your point. They haven't been bombed or oppressed, they just don't think anyone should be allowed to disagree with them.
They, like Islamic terrorists, also have a contingent of people who bend over backwards to say religion plays no part.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)So many islamist groups these days. Like mushrooms.
get the red out
(13,459 posts)Absolutely
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)You don't know shit about Islam you hateful little bigot.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Oh, I don't expect a response...I put the odds at like 32-1
Berlin Imam: Women Should Be Confined to the Home and Never Say No to Sex with Husband
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Hell look at the Duggars, Jeff's & Branch Dividions (sp). They are totally reasonable individuals that just worshipped their women folk.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You can find one person in any group of any description.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims and the vast majority of them are just trying to live their lives.
They are the ones oppressed by clerics who are extreme, not us.
Bonx
(2,041 posts)based on your insightful and eloquent reply.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Not to mention multiple deployments so I must say I have a bit more experience than the assholes that grab their pitchforks & torches every chance they get. It's nice to have someone I can ask very pointed & direct questions to without fear of judgment or reprisal.
Bonx
(2,041 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Ignorance of something can cause irrational fear.
Bonx
(2,041 posts)Response to Bonx (Reply #82)
Post removed
Bonx
(2,041 posts)Fits you perfect.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Hereiam2005
(23 posts)All religions do this.
"The interpretation of the texts are contradictory"
All religions also do this. Ask The Army of God if they have the same interpretation of the Book as you do. Or The Lords Resistance Army. Or Uganda's anti-gay laws. Even Buddhism, famous for nonviolence teaching, has its own terrorist groups.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/-sp-gay-ugandans-face-new-threat-from-anti-homosexuality-law
"part of the texts incite to violence: some Quran verses and hadiths"
First, Hadiths are verbal traditions that are essentially "I heard someone who heard someone who heard someone else saw the Prophet said ...", which are not precisely reliable.
There is even a Hadith that was almost a verbatim repeat of the Lord's Prayer: "Our Lord God, which art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom is in heaven and on earth; as Thy mercy is in Heaven, so show Thy mercy on earth; forgive us our debts and our sins. Thou art the Lord of the good; send down mercy from Thy mercy, and healing from Thy healing on this pain, that it may be healed.". Sounds familiar?
Second, pray tell, which Quran verses incite to violent? Assuming you can actually distinguish between the Text and the Hadiths.
"the way a plurality of Muslims understand Islam is not peaceful: half of the world Muslims believe their religion calls them to stone adulterers."
Stoning is NOT in the Quran. You can't blame the religion when it was obviously been perverted by other people.
"Their ISIS brand of Islam"
Have you ever heard of the word "cult"? ISIS is a cult. Period. The vast majority of Muslims, both Shia and Sunni, agree. (incidentally this is one of the rare occasion where they do agree)
"I cringed when I saw halfwit GW say just that just after 9/11."
I cringed whenever I saw people make uneducated comments about things they have no idea about, and make no effort to educate themselves before they open their mouth.
Peace to all.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,161 posts)and the accumulated decisions of Islamic jurisprudence:
No mention of stoning/Rajm or capital punishment for adultery is found in the Qur'an,[2] which (in Surah an-Nur) prescribes lashing as punishment for premarital and extramarital sex (zina).[7] For this reason some minority Muslim sects such as Kharijites found in Iraq, and Islamic Modernists such as the Quranists disagree with the legality of rajm.
However, stoning is mentioned in multiple hadiths[8] (reports claiming to quote what the prophet Muhammad said verbatim on various matters, which most Muslims and Islamic scholars consider an authoritative source second only to Quran as a source of religious law[9][10]) and therefore most Muslim and all Sunni and Shia schools of jurisprudence accept it as a prescribed punishment for adultery.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm
Hereiam2005
(23 posts)literally, and some who don't. It's in your quote for crying out loud: "For this reason some minority Muslim sects such as Kharijites found in Iraq, and Islamic Modernists such as the Quranists disagree with the legality of rajm."
Muslims are instructed to interpret the Koran on their own - that is the duty of all Muslims. To blindly follow some random self proclaimed "Muslim scholar" is the perversion of the religion at best.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,161 posts)Yes, also in my quote is:
"However, stoning is mentioned in multiple hadiths (reports claiming to quote what the prophet Muhammad said verbatim on various matters, which most Muslims and Islamic scholars consider an authoritative source second only to Quran as a source of religious law) and therefore most Muslim and all Sunni and Shia schools of jurisprudence accept it as a prescribed punishment for adultery. "
This is representative of the vast majority of interpretation. The Hadith are very important to all the main sects: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hadith
"Muslims are instructed to interpret the Koran on their own" - that is, I presume, in the Koran somewhere, since you're quoting it as an instruction to Muslims. Can you give us the context of that, please?
Since you think the major Sunni and Shia schools are "perversions" of Islam (since they follow the Hadith advocating stoning, which you say is "obviously perverted by other people" , what is a 'true' version of Islam to you?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)1 2:178 26 3:156 51 4:103 76 8:57 101 09:029 126 29:69 151 59:05
2 2:179 27 3:157 52 4:104 77 8:58 102 09:036 127 33:15 152 59:06
3 2:190 28 3:158 53 4:141 78 8:59 103 09:038 128 33:18 153 59:07
4 2:191 29 3:165 54 5:033 79 8:60 104 09:039 129 33:20 154 59:08
5 2:193 30 3:166 55 5:035 80 8:65 105 09:041 130 33:23 155 59:14
6 2:194 31 3:167 56 5:082 81 8:66 106 09:044 131 33:25 156 60:09
7 2:216 32 3:169 57 8:001 82 8:67 107 09:052 132 33:26 157 61:04
8 2:217 33 3:172 58 8:005 83 8:68 108 09:073 133 33:27 158 61:11
9 2:218 34 3:173 59 8:007 84 8 :69 109 09:081 134 33:50 159 61:13
10 2:244 35 3:195 60 8:009 85 8 : 70 110 09:083 135 42:39 160 63:04
11 3:121 36 4:071 61 8:010 86 8 : 71 111 09:086 136 47:04 161 64:14
12 3:122 37 4:072 62 8:012 87 8 : 72 112 09:088 137 47:20 162 66:09
13 3:123 38 4:074 63 8:015 88 8 : 73 113 09:092 138 47:35 163 73:20
14 3:124 39 4:075 64 8:016 89 8 : 74 114 09:111 139 48:15 164 76:08
15 3:125 40 4:076 65 8:017 90 8 : 75 115 09:120 140 48:16
16 3:126 41 4:077 66 8:039 91 9:05 116 09:122 141 48:17
17 3:140 42 4:084 67 8:040 92 9:12 117 09:123 142 48:18
18 3:141 43 4:089 68 8:041 93 9:13 118 16:110 143 48:19
19 3:142 44 4:090 69 8:042 94 9:14 119 22:039 144 48:20
20 3:143 45 4:091 70 8:043 95 9:16 120 22:058 145 48:21
21 3:146 46 4:094 71 8:044 96 9:19 121 22:078 146 48:22
22 3:152 47 4:095 72 8:045 97 9:20 122 24:053 147 48:23
23 3:153 48 4:100 73 8:046 98 9:24 123 24:055 148 48:24
24 3:154 49 4:101 74 8:047 99 9:25 124 25:052 149 49:15
25 3:155 50 4:102 75 8:048 100 9:26 125 29:006 150 59:02
You can't blame the religion when it was obviously been perverted by other people.
Besides, many Muslim journalists have already noted ISIS is very islamic. Literal Islam.
Hereiam2005
(23 posts)Verse 2:178:
Sahih International: O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment.
Where exactly does it incite violent?
Verse 3:156
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
O you who have believed, do not be like those who disbelieved and said about their brothers when they traveled through the land or went out to fight, "If they had been with us, they would not have died or have been killed," so Allah makes that [misconception] a regret within their hearts. And it is Allah who gives life and causes death, and Allah is Seeing of what you do.
Where exactly does it incite violent?
Verse 4:103
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And when you have completed the prayer, remember Allah standing, sitting, or [lying] on your sides. But when you become secure, re-establish [regular] prayer. Indeed, prayer has been decreed upon the believers a decree of specified times.
Where exactly does it incite violent?
Seriously, do I really have to recheck all your verses?
Islam is translated from Arabic - and if you already think it's evil, you would use the most evil words to translate it. Or in your case, selectively select the worst translation of a verse to claim the verse is evil.
Definition of "cult":
"A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."
(note: I use this definition).
By definition, Muslim is not a cult - since it is considered by at least 22% of the world to be not false.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cult
"The 4 schools of islamic jurisprudence"
Not all Muslims follow the Muslim jurists, or leaders, or scholars.
In fact, Muslims are encouraged to study the Koran by themselves - adhere to anyone but the Prophet and the words of God (which is the Koran) is following the false prophet, a crime in Muslim.
Those who blindly follow the words of any self-proclaimed Muslim jurists, or leaders, or scholars, any of them, are in fact, false Muslims.
Sorry, but that point is moot.
It's moot if you can't distinguish between a religion and its followers. It's like saying Germany is a terrible country because it produced Nazi. Nazism is a perversion of German culture, just as ISIS is a perversion of Islam. If you can't make that distinction, your whole arguments collapsed.
Islam is the Koran, period. It's the only thing that will never change.
"I know. The OP clearly states I am answering to a specific statement made about Islam."
This is the reason why I said that you have zero understanding about Islam and religion in general.
Religion, by itself, is open to interpretation. It's neither good, nor evil. It's the people who gave it their interpretation.
Your generalization of Islam is just bigotry, pure and simple.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)you answer no on the grounds Islam has a large following
I suppose you see you did not address my point: the distinction between religion and cult
Hint: the difference is in numbers only.
Not all Muslims follow the Muslim jurists, or leaders, or scholars.
ISIS is a perversion of Islam.
This is the reason why I said that you have zero understanding about Islam and religion in general. Religion, by itself, is open to interpretation. It's neither good, nor evil. It's the people who gave it their interpretation.
In what does the fact I answer to a broad, blanket and arguably false statement about Islam proves I do not know that religion? You'll have to explain this to me.
Your generalization of Islam is just bigotry, pure and simple.
my OP contests the statement that Islam is a religion of peace (like all abrahamic religions, but that's not the point of the OP). Let's turn the table around:
prove to me that Islam preaches only peace and absolutely no violence
If you cannot prove this, I expect you will be hoest enough to withdraw your somewhat unfriendly comments that I would be a bigot. NB: go back to the definition of bigot, and show me of what I would be a bigot? I don't think you can, so let's stay civil, shall we?
Lobo27
(753 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The muslim scholars cannot say "what ISIS is doing is wrong because it's un-islamic". They cannot, because the violent and murderous doctrine of ISIS can be traced perfectly to several parts of the Quran. (Former ISIS-operatives have told western intelligence that ISIS indoctrinates its fighters with cherry-picked parts of the Quran.)
It's the same as with the Bible: There are good parts and bad parts and if you quote the bad parts, you have divine justification for atrocities.
1. So, whatever violence happens, the extremists can always back it up by quoting selectively from the Torah/Bible/Quran.
2. In scientific discourse, discussion leads to some claims being declared right and others being declared wrong. Religious discourse doesn't work that way. Everything from the holy books is right, all the time, even if there are contradictions. (Religious disputes in the Middle-Ages were solved by finding more and more Bible-quotes that support your stance. The side that ends up with more quotes or with better quotes, wins. The concept of disproving your opponent's quotes and declaring them wrong was unthinkable, because the Bible was always right.)
=> You cannot declare the bad parts of a holy book to be wrong, because that would declare the holy book as a whole to be possibly wrong.
stone space
(6,498 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Do you mean the fact that they exist? Then Yes, this has been proven right by science.
Do you mean the way they are used or should be used? IIRC most national-security experts and scientists agree that the usage of nuclear weapons is a bad idea.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)is what you have with ANY extreme religious fanatical group. It has much less to do with religion than it does with fanaticism itself. EVERY RELIGION has violent fanatics. Does this make it right? Of course not. These people use RELIGION as the excuse to be violent and cause harm.
You see this in all religions, the use of fanaticism to cause harm using the vehicle of religion. You will find, if you look honestly, that the vast majority of people of any stripe who believe in religion of ANY STRIPE are peaceful in belief, action, and intent.
You need to remember that most Muslims are not violent, and are peaceful. Just as not all Germans were Nazis, and not all white southerners are KKK. Painting people with a broad brush is wrong.
DAESH uses Islam as a VEHICLE to further their propaganda.
brooklynite
(93,880 posts)The others aren't much better either.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Calling oneself a chosen people, or claiming one will end in eternal fire if one doesn't believe in Djeezus are not propositions conducive to mutual understanding.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)There are insane radicalized people in every grouping in society. Don't hate the whole group, heal the insane!
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I agree with everything you wrote, but it was not my point.
My OP just contests the statement: "Islam is a religion of peace"
Notably because the ideology of all religions is ill defined, varies over time, and, especially for Abrahamic religions, contains a fair amount of incitation to some form of violence or other.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)We live in a world of opposites, yin and yang. We can no more eradicate peace than eradicate violence. This plane of existence will not permit that. Some people gravitate more to violence, others gravitate more to peace. Any words and actions can incite either peace or violence, depending on a person's emotional/mental/physical state in this world at this point in time.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I want my money back
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)peace be achieved.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Not all religions are created equally, as least as far as violence is concerned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
As far as irrationality is concerned, however, I think they're all about identical.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)We had a narrow escape, you haven't used the Godwin tactic yet.
But it's near: Hitler = hate.