Islam: A violent religion?

[Snake South Amerika]

No religion is violent. M************ers who use it for political and/or murderous ends are. Fanatics screw up everything and politicians profit from it.

As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power." - Quran 5:38.

Many Muslims understand it as to cut just a simple mark into the thief's hand. But the fanatics order the amputation of the hands: in Saudi Arabia surgical amputation of the hand is legal punishment... in lawless East Africa, well, knives are rusted and the place of punishment is quite un-sanitary, and the punishment also consists of cutting the feet. If the person doesn't dies of gangreen, tetanus, septicemia or any other wound infection, it is doomed to remain a beggar for the rest of the life, which is no better than robbing.

Not like I'm a fan of thieves, robbers and criminals, but that kind of punishment is so disgusting, cruel and uneconomic, they just rip off the limbs of the robber and obliges us honest persons to buy the douchebag's bread and wheelchair for the rest of his/her life. Much better would be to place such people in perpetual prison sentence working there to pay their stay at prison.

Remember, we are all screwed up and condemned!
"And that He may punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Polytheists men and women, who imagine an evil opinion of Allah. On them is a round of Evil: the Wrath of Allah is on them: He has cursed them and got Hell ready for them: and evil is it for a destination." -Quran 48:06

[EnragedMaldivians]

[b]No religion is violent. M************ers who use it for political and/or murderous ends are. Fanatics screw up everything and politicians profit from it.

As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power." - Quran 5:38.

Many Muslims understand it as to cut just a simple mark into the thief's hand. But the fanatics order the amputation of the hands: in Saudi Arabia surgical amputation of the hand is legal punishment... in lawless East Africa, well, knives are rusted and the place of punishment is quite un-sanitary, and the punishment also consists of cutting the feet. If the person doesn't dies of gangreen, tetanus, septicemia or any other wound infection, it is doomed to remain a beggar for the rest of the life, which is no better than robbing.

Not like I'm a fan of thieves, robbers and criminals, but that kind of punishment is so disgusting, cruel and uneconomic, they just rip off the limbs of the robber and obliges us honest persons to buy the douchebag's bread and wheelchair for the rest of his/her life. Much better would be to place such people in perpetual prison sentence working there to pay their stay at prison.

Remember, we are all screwed up and condemned!
"And that He may punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Polytheists men and women, who imagine an evil opinion of Allah. On them is a round of Evil: the Wrath of Allah is on them: He has cursed them and got Hell ready for them: and evil is it for a destination." -Quran 48:06[/b

]

Interesting. Does this not apply to the people who founded them? Unless you think they were actually telling the truth when they claimed God was communicating with them.

[Salandriagado]

Now if we put Jesus in contrast
Never owned a slave
Never married or had sex
Never killed or even hit. He did smash up a temple but never against a human

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

[Jahada]

All religions have their violence. However all religions but one to me have a half decent role model for our modern times.

Mohammed owned a slave
He married and had sex with a girl that by todays standards would be classed as a minor (rape)
He killed hit opponents


Now if we put Jesus in contrast
Never owned a slave
Never married or had sex
Never killed or even hit. He did smash up a temple but never against a human


I believe all relgions were created out of fear, believed by some and misused by others for personal means. But if you just look at the idea of the main character being a role model Mohammed fails. Great for the people then. Not so much now

Jesus had it much easier than Muhammad. He didn't have to deal with constant war and betrayal. He didn't have to set up an independent state and implement a code of law. He didn't have to make complicated geopolitical decisions.

Now, don't get me wrong, we Muslims adore Jesus. He is regarded as a great Messenger of God like Muhammad, and one of the best people who ever lived, and the Messiah (but this a different way than in Christianity). When you look at the big picture, and understand the circumstances for Muhammad's and Jesus' actions, you'll realize that Jesus' teachings are almost completely compatible with Muhammad's. Why? Because Muslims believe that Jesus, Muhammad, and all the prophets/messengers before them were preaching the same basic faith. So comparing Jesus to [your distorted conception of] Muhammad for the sake of attacking Islam is actually moot.

[Baltenstein]

Jesus had it much easier than Muhammad. He didn't have to deal with constant war and betrayal.

One betrayal, actually.

Now, don't get me wrong, we Muslims adore Jesus. He is regarded as a great Messenger of God like Muhammad, and one of the best people who ever lived, and the Messiah (but this a different way than in Christianity). When you look at the big picture, and understand the circumstances for Muhammad's and Jesus' actions, you'll realize that Jesus' teachings are almost completely compatible with Muhammad's. Why? Because Muslims believe that Jesus, Muhammad, and all the prophets/messengers before them were preaching the same basic faith. So comparing Jesus to [your distorted conception of] Muhammad for the sake of attacking Islam is actually moot.

When you look at the big picture...from a Muslim perspective. If you look at it from a Christian perspective, Muhammad was just an ambitious man with his own agenda. If you look at it from an Atheist perspective, the same applies to Jesus.
While it's perfectly legitimate to interpret both Jesus' and Muhammad's actions from an Islamic theological perspective, it isn't any more legitimate than rivaling perspectives (like the Christian or Atheist ones, for example.)

[Jahada]

Jesus had it much easier than Muhammad. He didn't have to deal with constant war and betrayal.

One betrayal, actually.

Actually there were three big ones. Three times when whole tribes defected. And then dozens when individuals did.

When you look at the big picture...from a Muslim perspective. If you look at it from a Christian perspective, Muhammad was just an ambitious man with his own agenda. If you look at it from an Atheist perspective, the same applies to Jesus.
While it's perfectly legitimate to interpret both Jesus' and Muhammad's actions from an Islamic theological perspective, it isn't any more legitimate than rivaling perspectives (like the Christian or Atheist ones, for example.)

Alright. I'll concede to that.

Although, one does have to understand the circumstances before passing judgments.

[Seleukeia Dimokratia]

Το Ισλάμ δεν είναι βίαιο. Μερικοί μουσουλμάνοι έχουν καταστραφεί τα μυαλά.

[EnragedMaldivians]

All religions have their violence. However all religions but one to me have a half decent role model for our modern times.

Mohammed owned a slave
He married and had sex with a girl that by todays standards would be classed as a minor (rape)
He killed hit opponents


Now if we put Jesus in contrast
Never owned a slave
Never married or had sex
Never killed or even hit. He did smash up a temple but never against a human


I believe all relgions were created out of fear, believed by some and misused by others for personal means. But if you just look at the idea of the main character being a role model Mohammed fails. Great for the people then. Not so much now

Jesus had it much easier than Muhammad. He didn't have to deal with constant war and betrayal. He didn't have to set up an independent state and implement a code of law. He didn't have to make complicated geopolitical decisions.

Now, don't get me wrong, we Muslims adore Jesus. He is regarded as a great Messenger of God like Muhammad, and one of the best people who ever lived, and the Messiah (but this a different way than in Christianity). When you look at the big picture, and understand the circumstances for Muhammad's and Jesus' actions, you'll realize that Jesus' teachings are almost completely compatible with Muhammad's. Why? Because Muslims believe that Jesus, Muhammad, and all the prophets/messengers before them were preaching the same basic faith. So comparing Jesus to [your distorted conception of] Muhammad for the sake of attacking Islam is actually moot.

If I were a statesman, and I signed a treaty with a neigbouring statesman who claimed to hear voices in his head that told him what to do I would probably be tempted to betray him too. To not be wary of someone wielding geo-political power, who claims to be on some kind of divine mission would be completely insane. I offer George W.Bush as evidence to back up this statement.

Muhammad was a political/military genius, with a few good ideas about ethics that was a genuine improvement over the beleifs of the Pagan Arabs. But in the grand scheme of things, he introduced nothing new to moral philosophy - and to be quite honest is an inferior role model compared to Jesus as depicted in the Bible, whatever the context of their decision making process. "Bless those that curse you" has no equivalent in Islam. (Note that I am not saying Christianity is superior, I am focusing on the individual religious figures themselves.)

Furthermore the insistence on the supreme ethical superiority of Monotheism, to the extent that shirk is the only unpardonable sin is frankly just bizzare. The level of vitriol the Qur'an directs at, polytheists is unbeleivable, and in no way compensates for a few cherry picked "enlightened" verses such as Lakhum Dheen'akhum Waly'adeen, or Iqraaf'idheen; and it is hard not to see the text as anything other than aggressive. Even if there is no explicit command to go and extirminate them, in the context that the regional denizens were in no way advocates of pacifism, nor did Muhammad shy away from the use of force - it's hardly a surprise Islam became such an expansionary geo-political entity in the medieval world.

Liberal secular laws are far superior to anything contained in the old testament, or in any version of shariah law - whose reasonableness is (appropriately) judged along a spectrum beginning with a right wing caricature of what it is (a very real one in Saudi Arabia) - and how closely it can align itself with liberal, secular values. Unfortunately, even when it reaches the left-most point, even then, Islamic jurisprudence tends not to shy away from inflicting violence on people for what they do in the privacy of their own homes, consensually and without harming anyone else. And pseudo-moderates love exploiting the red herring of terrorism to avoid engaging with the real flaws of Islam. It's repressiveness, intrusiveness, and use of force to suppress specific individual rights that Muslim society does not agree with. In that sense, as far as main stream Sunni jurisprudence is concerned, it is a violent religion - and people (meaning self-flagellating Westerners) who use Christianity to commit an et tu fallacy miss the point completely.

[Los Cabreddes]

No religion is violent. M************ers who use it for political and/or murderous ends are. Fanatics screw up everything and politicians profit from it.

As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power." - Quran 5:38.

Many Muslims understand it as to cut just a simple mark into the thief's hand. But the fanatics order the amputation of the hands: in Saudi Arabia surgical amputation of the hand is legal punishment... in lawless East Africa, well, knives are rusted and the place of punishment is quite un-sanitary, and the punishment also consists of cutting the feet. If the person doesn't dies of gangreen, tetanus, septicemia or any other wound infection, it is doomed to remain a beggar for the rest of the life, which is no better than robbing.

Well evidently the East African process goes too far. I'm actually not totally sure cutting off a thieves hands is a bad punishment, especially if done with deliberation and proper legal proceedings, and its less extreme then what they do in Texas. Plus it reminds them for the rest of their life of what they did.

Not like I'm a fan of thieves, robbers and criminals, but that kind of punishment is so disgusting, cruel and uneconomic, they just rip off the limbs of the robber and obliges us honest persons to buy the douchebag's bread and wheelchair for the rest of his/her life. Much better would be to place such people in perpetual prison sentence working there to pay their stay at prison.

I think slavery is far crueller then cutting off a hand, or even what the East Africans do.

[Mercator Terra]

The religion itself? Yes.

Muslims themselves? Not necessarily.

[Los Cabreddes]

If you look at it from an Atheist perspective, the same applies to Jesus.

I don't think you could say that about Jesus. At worse, you could say he was very wrong and very brave and very selfless.

[Seleukeia Dimokratia]

The religion itself? Yes.

Muslims themselves? Not necessarily.

Μου αρέσει σημαία σας.

'πωλώ'.

[Mercator Terra]

The religion itself? Yes.

Muslims themselves? Not necessarily.

Μου αρέσει σημαία σας.

'πωλώ'.

Thank you

It means agora am I correct?

And a agora is a marketplace.

[Los Cabreddes]

Honestly the only punishments in Islamic law I object to are punishments for blasphemy and leaving the faith. Thought crimes should not be crimes.

[Meryuma]

Just like the Bible, the Qur'an has commands for both violence and nonviolence, and it takes a skilled theologian to reconcile everything in the text.

Some Muslims are violent, some aren't.

[Basementees]

Islam is violent in exactly the same way that Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and all other religions are Violent.

If you speak to someone who will follow those religions, who is quite philosophical, and accepts that others have different view points; then they will say that the "extremists" are not true followers of their religion. We could even go on to say that the "extremists" of these religions are in fact creating new religions. They are religions as people will follow "thoughtlessly" and believe.

[Baltenstein]

Actually there were three big ones. Three times when whole tribes defected. And then dozens when individuals did.

I meant Jesus.

In that sense, as far as main stream Sunni jurisprudence is concerned, it is a violent religion - and people (meaning self-flagellating Westerners) who use Christianity to commit an et tu fallacy miss the point completely.

The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure Christian ethics are a contributing factor to that behavior. "Let him who is whithout sin cast the first stone" etc.

[Los Cabreddes]

Now if we put Jesus in contrast
Never owned a slave
Never married or had sex
Never killed or even hit. He did smash up a temple but never against a human

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

The Trinity is a very complex subject and assuming it means Jehovah and Christ can always be interchanged is fallacious. Also, as Paul points out in Romans 1, often Gods wrath is the natural and obvious consequences of our actions piling up against us, think pantheism or the idea that God and the Universe are interchangeable, only not exactly that idea because Christians also believe that God is bigger then the universe and any form of human understanding.

The Skeptics Annotated Bible is a lousy way of looking at the bible for the exact same reason as why the biblethumping Televangelists have a lousy way of looking at the bible - it takes the phrasings and sayings of books like Genesis and Joshua never meant to be divided and not originally written to be part of the bible and interprets (or, in the case of SAB, encourages others to interpret) totally out of context with the larger book it is in.

If you want to understand the bible, you have to read books the whole way through, and the Bible itself is an entire spiritual inheritance! It's a LIBRARY for crying out loud! You can't take these simplistic models and 9th Grade English class crap and apply it left and right to something so big and so meaningful.

"For the Kingdom of Heaven is inside of you." (Luke 17: 21, portion)

NOTE EDIT: I realized that I left out a crucial phrase from one of the sentences.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Islam is violent in exactly the same way that Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and all other religions are Violent.

If you speak to someone who will follow those religions, who is quite philosophical, and accepts that others have different view points; then they will say that the "extremists" are not true followers of their religion. We could even go on to say that the "extremists" of these religions are in fact creating new religions. They are religions as people will follow "thoughtlessly" and believe.

Or you know, Jainism, and Buddhism. The content, and the likelihood of how it will influences the socio-cultural construct of how people are to behave are completely irrelavant amirite?

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" had no implications whatsoever.

The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure Christian ethics are a contributing factor to that behavior. "Let him who is whithout sin cast the first stone" etc.

Which is some kind of reverse ad-hominem. My hypocritical personal behaviour has no bearing on the arguement I am making - if a thief calls someone who is stealing something a thief, the point he is making is valid.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Honestly the only punishments in Islamic law I object to are punishments for blasphemy and leaving the faith. Thought crimes should not be crimes.

Lashing/stoning/death for "fornication" and homosexual acts?

[Sivonaa]

Islam is a violent religion. In my opinion religion should not be based off of who is right and who is wrong. It is your religion we have ours you have yours. But they want to take it to the extreme thinking that killing people who dont follow their rules is the right thing to do. BS!

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Islam is a violent religion. In my opinion religion should not be based off of who is right and who is wrong. It is your religion we have ours you have yours. But they want to take it to the extreme thinking that killing people who dont follow their rules is the right thing to do. BS!

So Christianity is a violent religion?

[Jahada]

Honestly the only punishments in Islamic law I object to are punishments for blasphemy and leaving the faith. Thought crimes should not be crimes.

Turns out there is no such thing as a blasphemy law in Islam. It was fabricated by jurists.

As for the death-for-apostasy thing, it was instituted by Muhammad as a way to crack down on betrayal. It was completely circumstantial. The Quran says in blanket statements several times that you cannot force someone to become a Muslim. It even acknowledges that it's impossible to do so because true faith is achieved not by force, but by one's own free will.

[Zanazbar]

Honestly the only punishments in Islamic law I object to are punishments for blasphemy and leaving the faith. Thought crimes should not be crimes.

Turns out there is no such thing as a blasphemy law in Islam. It was fabricated by jurists.

As for the death-for-apostasy thing, it was instituted by Muhammad as a way to crack down on betrayal. It was completely circumstantial. The Quran says in blanket statements several times that you cannot force someone to become a Muslim. It even acknowledges that it's impossible to do so because true faith is achieved not by force, but by one's own free will.

I would like to note that al Qaeda's purpose is to destroy America, because according to them, America is the "Great Satan". Their goal isn't to turn us Muslim.They hate us for many reasons. Such as: Abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion, also abandoning the Iraqi rebel's cry for help, and our support of Israel

[Jahada]

But in the grand scheme of things, he introduced nothing new to moral philosophy - and to be quite honest is an inferior role model compared to Jesus as depicted in the Bible, whatever the context of their decision making process. "Bless those that curse you" has no equivalent in Islam. (Note that I am not saying Christianity is superior, I am focusing on the individual religious figures themselves.)

So I guess giving to the poor, caring for orphans, being kind to others, respecting one's parents, treating others with fairness, observing the rule of law, giving women rights, and upholding justice are "inferior" to what Jesus advocated.

The teachings of Muhammad (from an Islamic perspective) and Jesus (from a Christian perspective) are almost identical. Honestly, the only real difference between what Muhammad taught (from an Islamic perspective) and what Jesus taught (from a Christian perspective) is the turn-the-other-cheek mentality. And the reason for this is the very fundamental doctrine of Christianity itself: Unlike Islam, Christianity says salvation relies on faith alone. There is absolutely no sense of accountability in Christianity, and being a bad person does not warrant any form of punishment, be it worldly or in the afterlife. Even though Jesus did preach various forms of morality, conceptually, one can flippantly disregard all of this, and do whatever the hell one wants, while still accepting Jesus as "Lord and Savior" and be entitled to a place in Heaven.

In Islam, on the other hand, deeds are part of salvation, and Islam values the establishment of a just society here on Earth. Wrongdoers are punished not only as retribution for their actions, but to keep the rest of the population in line, obeying the laws God has laid down for them.

Basically, Islamic law is mostly Jesus' teachings but with punishments tacked onto the other end.

Unfortunately, even when it reaches the left-most point, even then, Islamic jurisprudence tends not to shy away from inflicting violence on people for what they do in the privacy of their own homes, consensually and without harming anyone else... It's repressiveness, intrusiveness, and use of force to suppress specific individual rights that Muslim society does not agree with.

The only real basis non-Muslims use to justify calling Islamic law "intrusive" is the part about sexual immorality laws, like you mentioned. Beside those, you'd be hard pressed to find a civil right not allowed in Islamic law that is allowed in secular law.

And please, don't ever fool yourself into thinking Saudi Arabia is run by pure Islamic law. It's not.