Islam: A violent religion?

[Zilam]

Because the Torah is full of messages of peace and love isn't it?

Aren't the five books of Moses (Torah) part of the Koran?

No. The Torah is seen as an inspired, but corrupted text in Islam, just like the Injeel (gospels).

[Ifreann]

Islam ran over my dog once. I tried to take the license plate number, but apparently anthropomorphic personifications of religions have the forethought to take their plates off before they go joyriding.

And when the cops asked you to look at a lineup, how of many of them were bearded and wore turbans?

I think I may have mistakenly identified Hinduism.

[Miasto Lodz]

IRA. WBC.

Come on, IRA is as much religiously motivated as ETA or the Corsicans are.

There are, however, 'Christian social security parasites' in other countries.

There are even more sneaky bastards: they work honestly for the glory of Her Majesty and spend the money abroad.

[St George of England]

And when the cops asked you to look at a lineup, how of many of them were bearded and wore turbans?

I think I may have mistakenly identified Hinduism.

Or perhaps Sikhism?

[Ifreann]

I think I may have mistakenly identified Hinduism.

Or perhaps Sikhism?

No, they found a knife on Sikhism and dragged him off to be strip searched.

[Fedeledland]

I personally don't like most Islamic doctrines, although that's just me.

Islam is not violent. Some of the people who practise it, like the Al-Qaeda group or Muhammad al-Gadaffi, are.

[Yootwopia]

There's no return to crusades. Christianity has passed the reformation, Vaticanum II and now is in retreat (what I'm happy to see).

Not really, since the Christian population is still growing.

But here and now there are no Christian terrorists around.

Hasn't been very long since all kind of Christian terrorism in the Lebanon, let alone the Balkans, and until very recently the Lord's Resistance Army were kicking about the place, not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is a scriptural one.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Is Islam violent?

No more so than any other religion.

[Vecherd]

Short answer: Yes with a but.
Long answer: No with a maybe.

[Innsmothe]

Is Islam violent?

No more so than any other religion.

'Cept maybe zen Buddhism? Or is that just a philosophy?

You would be too confused to be violent in any case.

[Ifreann]

No more so than any other religion.

'Cept maybe zen Buddhism? Or is that just a philosophy?

You would be too confused to be violent in any case.

I think self-immolation counts as violent.

[Ex-Brogavia]

Of course. Its violent and repressive, and I'll tell you why. Its because its a religion.

[Yootwopia]

Short answer: Yes with a but.
Long answer: No with a maybe.

Please explain your long answer to us. Enlighten me.

[Innsmothe]

Of course. Its violent and repressive, and I'll tell you why. Its because its a religion.

Asatru-ism isn't repressive and only a certain interpretation can be violent (like most religions.).
It has no religious law and no enforced worship.
Blanketing all religion as the same, is the belief of a fool.

Religion is never the problem. It is always the believer's fault, for it is them who interprets the religion in a way to allow them to commit violent and repulsive acts.

[Yootwopia]

Of course. Its violent and repressive, and I'll tell you why. Its because its a religion.

Asatru-ism isn't repressive and only a certain interpretation can be violent (like most religions.).

Yeah on the other hand, it's more a club for people who want to slightly aggrivate their parents than a widely-practised religion.

[Miasto Lodz]

There's no return to crusades. Christianity has passed the reformation, Vaticanum II and now is in retreat (what I'm happy to see).

Not really, since the Christian population is still growing.

But here and now there are no Christian terrorists around.

Hasn't been very long since all kind of Christian terrorism in the Lebanon, let alone the Balkans, and until very recently the Lord's Resistance Army were kicking about the place, not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is a scriptural one.

I'm guilty of being eurocentric. /me whips himself with sevenhooked whip

[Yootwopia]

I'm guilty of being eurocentric. /me whips himself with sevenhooked whip

The Balkans are in Europe. What you're being is ignorant and/or forgetful.

[Innsmothe]

Asatru-ism isn't repressive and only a certain interpretation can be violent (like most religions.).

Yeah on the other hand, it's more a club for people who want to slightly aggrivate their parents than a widely-practised religion.

I actually like it for the metal-esque culture.

Though it also gives me a semi-legitimate excuse to beat people and steal their stuff.

[Primorum Libertorum]

It does justify war in some cases, but condemns the killing of innocents.

That is absolutely worthless. If you practice the philosophy "You are either for or against me", then the only innocents are to find among your supporters. Imagine a white supremacist condemning the killing of innocents - would you instantly cheer to him or would you rather ask for the criteria he uses to identify an innocent? I strongly advise you to choose the latter.

The fact that Muslims have killed in rage and said that they were doing it for God doesn't make Islam an entirely bad religion does it?

Yeah, just like people committing atrocities out of racist reasoning doesn't make racism an entirely bad ideology. Oh wait, it does!

Of course that depends on how you define "entirely bad". There are without doubt many racists who consider members of other races inferior and yet are friendly to them, like one is friendly to animals or children or invalids. And a racist ideology gives a lot to racists that these perceive as positive: values, orientation, solidarity with like-minded people etc. So if you are asking whether racism does nothing good for anyone, then the answer must honestly be: No, racism is not an entirely bad ideology. Nothing is, in fact. Any belief held by even a single person is something positive at least in the eyes of that person. That makes it nothing less than impossible for anything to be "entirely bad". Relativism for the win!

Ideologies should be judged by their actual contents. And when the idealistic propaganda and the real actions of the followers differ too much, then the term should refer to reality instead of propaganda.

[Innsmothe]

It does justify war in some cases, but condemns the killing of innocents.

That is absolutely worthless. If you practice the philosophy "You are either for or against me", then the only innocents are to find among your supporters. Imagine a white supremacist condemning the killing of innocents - would you instantly cheer to him or would you rather ask for the criteria he uses to identify an innocent? I strongly advise you to choose the latter.

The fact that Muslims have killed in rage and said that they were doing it for God doesn't make Islam an entirely bad religion does it?

Yeah, just like people committing atrocities out of racist reasoning doesn't make racism an entirely bad ideology. Oh wait, it does!

Of course that depends on how you define "entirely bad". There are without doubt many racists who consider members of other races inferior and yet are friendly to them, like one is friendly to animals or children or invalids. And a racist ideology gives a lot to racists that these perceive as positive: values, orientation, solidarity with like-minded people etc. So if you are asking whether racism does nothing good for anyone, then the answer must honestly be: No, racism is not an entirely bad ideology. Nothing is, in fact. Any belief held by even a single person is something positive at least in the eyes of that person. That makes it nothing less than impossible for anything to be "entirely bad". Relativism for the win!

Ideologies should be judged by their actual contents. And when the idealistic propaganda and the real actions of the followers differ too much, then the term should refer to reality instead of propaganda.

Falalcy.

A religion can have many competing ideologies, and for a fact, Islam does.

It has over a dozen sects with four or five competing schools for every sect. No one Muslim or one groups of Muslims can give non-believers a legitimate cause to label all Islam a violent and terrible religion. Because no one groups wil agree with another about what Islam 'is'.

[Primorum Libertorum]

Sorry, but the fallacy is completely on your side, Innsmothe I won't even think of getting on a "No true Scotsman" attempt for a whole bunch of reasons.

But the most pragmatic one is this: I leave the definition of what "Islam" or "Christianity" to the other person. So whenever he tries to pull of the "That's no true Christian/Muslim/Scotsman...!" tactic, I respond "Oh? So how do you define Christian/Muslim/Scotsman...?" He can then either come forth with a definition - which will have a number of flaws, you can bet on that! - or decide to keep it undefined, in which case I will exploit that to his disadvantage mercilessly Either way, he fails.

[Innsmothe]

Sorry, but the fallacy is completely on your side, Innsmothe I won't even think of getting on a "No true Scotsman" attempt for a whole bunch of reasons.

But the most pragmatic one is this: I leave the definition of what "Islam" or "Christianity" to the other person. So whenever he tries to pull of the "That's no true Christian/Muslim/Scotsman...!" tactic, I respond "Oh? So how do you define Christian/Muslim/Scotsman...?" He can then either come forth with a definition - which will have a number of flaws, you can bet on that! - or decide to keep it undefined, in which case I will exploit that to his disadvantage mercilessly Either way, he fails.

Since Islam is supposed to be decentralised and 'open to interpretation', Islam can hardly be defined by the 'values' people claim it has, as the passages mean different things to different people.

It could be defined as a 'belief in Allah and his final prophet.' but there are arguments over that as well.
I read soemwhere that Allah had three daughters, but Mohammed told his believers not to worship them.
Some groups argue against that. :/

[Republicke]

Sorry, but the fallacy is completely on your side, Innsmothe I won't even think of getting on a "No true Scotsman" attempt for a whole bunch of reasons.

But the most pragmatic one is this: I leave the definition of what "Islam" or "Christianity" to the other person. So whenever he tries to pull of the "That's no true Christian/Muslim/Scotsman...!" tactic, I respond "Oh? So how do you define Christian/Muslim/Scotsman...?" He can then either come forth with a definition - which will have a number of flaws, you can bet on that! - or decide to keep it undefined, in which case I will exploit that to his disadvantage mercilessly Either way, he fails.

Inns. wasn't being controversial, how to define religions is a difficult and still problematic issue. Criticizing a monolithic framework or presentation of Islam isn't "No true Scotsman". All he was saying, IMO, is that characterizing an entire faith as violent or non-violent is a generalization, it's always going to be a case of "Yes, but with these qualifiers" or "No, but here are my caveats".

[Cerod]

Oh god! What is with this hate on Islam????? Cut it out

[Innsmothe]

Oh god! What is with this hate on Islam????? Cut it out

It;s quite a decent debate actually.