Islam: A violent religion?

[Syvorji]

No, because those committing the attacks are radicals, in other words, conveant-breakers, seeking to destroy Islam, which mainstream Muslims have all denounced and rejected them.

[Sierra Lobo]

And islamic response to this is beheading

Now which is worse?

You do realize that it is a trait of the Middle East, not a trait of Islam.

So you admit they have a violent culture?

[The Corparation]

You do realize that it is a trait of the Middle East, not a trait of Islam.

So you admit they have a violent culture?

So do most nations.

[Sierra Lobo]

So you admit they have a violent culture?

So do most nations.

My query is on his comment a 'trait of the middle east'

Your comment comment is a red herring.

[Gauthier]

So do most nations.

My query is on his comment a 'trait of the middle east'

Your comment comment is a red herring.

Not really since you implied the MIddle East is the only violent culture in the world.

[Sierra Lobo]

My query is on his comment a 'trait of the middle east'

Your comment comment is a red herring.

Not really since you implied the MIddle East is the only violent culture in the world.

If you read carefully he was the one to put it in that context.

[The Corparation]

My query is on his comment a 'trait of the middle east'

Your comment comment is a red herring.

Not really since you implied the MIddle East is the only violent culture in the world.

And since there are just as many nonmuslim nations with violent cultures, its not just Islam.

[Sierra Lobo]

Not really since you implied the MIddle East is the only violent culture in the world.

And since there are just as many nonmuslim nations with violent cultures, its not just Islam.

ahh but we are not discussing about the world, the query is in reponse to this:

And islamic response to this is beheading

Now which is worse?

You do realize that it is a trait of the Middle East, not a trait of Islam.

[Gauthier]

Not really since you implied the MIddle East is the only violent culture in the world.

If you read carefully he was the one to put it in that context.

Um no, he stated that the culture was the driving force behind the violence, not the religion.

[Sierra Lobo]

If you read carefully he was the one to put it in that context.

Um no, he stated that the culture was the driving force behind the violence, not the religion.

do not equivocate.

[Gauthier]

Um no, he stated that the culture was the driving force behind the violence, not the religion.

do not equivocate.

This, coming from someone who equivocates the Middle East as the only violent culture in the world.

[Sierra Lobo]

do not equivocate.

This, coming from someone who equivocates the Middle East as the only violent culture in the world.

did I say that? please quote me.

[Gauthier]

This, coming from someone who equivocates the Middle East as the only violent culture in the world.

did I say that? please quote me.

So do most nations.

My query is on his comment a 'trait of the middle east'

Your comment comment is a red herring.

You implied his stating that other nations have violent cultures is a red herring, thus suggesting the only violent culture in existence is the Middle East.

[Episarta]

No Islam is not violent. At least no more violent than Christianity or Judaism, actually probably less so. The Old Testament has some extremely messed up things in it. Just read it, it is pretty gruesome. And what I find to be funny is that for a majority of history in most Islamic empires, the sultans and emperors and whatnot were actually very tolerant of other religious beliefs. As long as you paid your taxes, they didn't really bother you. But on the other hand, Christian empires and kingdoms have been rather violent and irrational. Such as the three or four crusades into the middle east, Spanish inquistion (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!), among numerous other things. Not saying that Islam has always been kind either, but going by history, they seem to have done less violent acts then Christians.

And for the record, no religion is bad per se, but all have some bad people and condone horrific acts in the name of their "god". Although bad is just a matter of perspective I suppose.

[Sierra Lobo]

did I say that? please quote me.

My query is on his comment a 'trait of the middle east'

Your comment comment is a red herring.

You implied his stating that other nations have violent cultures is a red herring, thus suggesting the only violent culture in existence is the Middle East.

Please read the posts in progression. We were talking about islam, then he defended that by stating it is a trait of the middle east and not of islam.

We were not discussing about the world; thus I call red herring.

[Islamic Hazarastan]

You do realize that it is a trait of the Middle East, not a trait of Islam.

So you admit they have a violent culture?

Execution by beheading was normal back then. It happened everywhere in the world.

[The Atlantean Menace]

did I say that? please quote me.

My query is on his comment a 'trait of the middle east'

Your comment comment is a red herring.

You implied his stating that other nations have violent cultures is a red herring, thus suggesting the only violent culture in existence is the Middle East.

I don't think you understand what "red herring" means.

So you admit they have a violent culture?

Execution by beheading was normal back then. It happened everywhere in the world.

Uh...Saudi Arabia does execution by beheading. So if by "back then" you mean "Like last Tuesday"...Well, beheading as capital punishment wasn't all that popular last Tuesday.

[Islamic Hazarastan]

Execution by beheading was normal back then. It happened everywhere in the world.

Uh...Saudi Arabia does execution by beheading. So if by "back then" you mean "Like last Tuesday"...Well, beheading as capital punishment wasn't all that popular last Tuesday.

I know. I meant it was normal in the middle ages. Saudi Arabia is stuck in those times.

[Dustistan]

What does the year have to do with anything?

Everything. Mideval-Romanic-Renaissance age Muslims were great, because of their mathematical discoveries. But now, they just rely on their oil supply.

Let's assume, for now, the highly unlikely proposition that Christians in the 12th century were raving violent despots, and Muslims were peace-loving cosmopolitan scientifically enlightened thinkers, and that in the 21st century the roles have completely reversed.

It is as erroneous to look at the 12th century and say "Christians! Hah! See?" as it is to look at the 21st and say "Muslims! Hah! See?"

Furthermore, since the attitude and culture of both Muslims and Christians has changed, it follows that the attitude and culture of neither can be taking as an accurate reflection of either Islam or Christianity, the precepts of each of which are recorded in widely accessible historical documents.

At best, we can say "12th or 21st century Christians or Muslims do or do not live according to their alleged faith". And if we confine our observations to modern or ancient practitioners, and fail to refer to the documents, we can't even say that.

The title of this thread is about a religion, Islam. The behaviour of modern Muslims, or of a minority sect, is irrelevant. If Al Qaeda is violent, it may be because they are faithful to Islam, it may be because they are deviant. We can't know without referring to the Qu'ran. And if we refer to the Qu'ran, we won't need Al Qaeda's example either way. Ditto for the Crusades. The Crusaders are irrelevant to whether or not Christianity is violent or peaceful. To determine that, you must refer to the Bible (and not just the Old Testament, obviously)

If you argue "Christianity/Islam is bad" by referring to its alleged practitioners and not to the faith itself, you are arguing at level DH4 at best (and possibly as low as DH1) on this scale. If you don;t go back to the scriptures, you'll never reach DH6 or DH7, and you'll remain forever unconvincing, except to those who already agree with you.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Jahada wrote:

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.

I gave credit where credit was due and said his moral ideas were an improvement over what the pagan Arabs practiced. But as a role model in terms of how he conducted himself, yes he was inferior. Even if by the standards of his culture, he wasn't a "bad" person - I will always think of Jesus as the superior example to follow. Perhaps it was fortunate he never came to wield as much geo-political power as Muhammad.

Plus, what exactly did he introduce that was new aside from a reactionary form of pure Monotheism? His role, and moral advice was completely superfluous in the grand scheme of things.

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.

Salvation through faith alone is completely idiotic; you won't find me defending that concept. However, it is not unanimously accepted by all Christian schools is it? Secondly, even Islam is partially salvation through faith alone, because your good works do not count unless you are Muslim. Now the Qur'an does flip flop on this with regard to Monotheists, but where does that leave...say, Ghandhi?

Furthermore, in terms of not advocating punishment - it does not prohibit accountability being enforced through secular laws, where the community, through empathaetic and practical reason, having decided that murder, theft, and kidnapping are harmful to the functioning of a just society, punish them. When it comes to religious morals, there is a certain beauty in not allowing sinners to punish sinners, and leaving it up to god, no?

You're just upset secular laws don't lash and stone people for "fornication.", and aren't accountable to your religious morals.

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

I've often said as much. Those punishments form the basis of much of my criticism.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" vs "bury her up to her chest and stone her to death", is why I think Christianity is at least margianally preferable to Islam.

Tell me, how would a country like Japan or Sweden benefit from Shariah punishments? In what way is it relevant to anyone who doesn't want to be Muslim. Since Islamic marriages are the only ones available in my country, and I refuse to be celibate - short of self imposed exile, "fornication" is my only option. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with safe sex. What business is it of the state to punish me for it.

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.

A) As if that's not intrusive and the punishments aren't ridiculously disproportionate. The fact that you think that it's your business what two men, or an unmarried woman and a man do in the privacy of their own home, and warrants you supporting legislation to punish their so called immorality, is testament to how your religion has no place in government. Apparently the prospect of people being stoned to death is some kind of irrelevant afterthought to your pursuit of a wholeseome, lovely Islamic Utopia.

Your liberal stance on the apostasy laws, are your opinion (not without some merit though) - and will always be vulnerable to being supplanted by a more traditional stance, by any scholar who can argue with more theological rigor. That doesn't bode well for a lot of people, including myself.

B) Did you miss the part where I said unhelpful caricature? In fact, I was complaining that gentleman such as yourself are able to contrast your own interpretation of Shariah, as "reasonable" compared to it's ridiculous implementation in the KSA.

Just because I agree that syariah is taken to a twisted extreme in Saudi Arabia doesn't mean I will ever be in favour of it's more "progressive" manifestations. Saudi Arabia is not my point of reference when I criticise Shariah law.

Gauthier wrote:
Because everyone assumes an ayatollah is an Islamic Pope with the same level of influence and power.

Sunni Islam does not have a clerical hierarchy, at least in theory. Ayatollahs are from the shi'ite minority; and you are right don't have as much influence, say the pope. The supreme leader (khameini now) on the other hand, as the head of the Iranian state, does. Also please stop with your constant pity for us poor oppressed brown people. As a brown person, who has lived in the West, including New York, I find it patronising and unnecessary.

[Bengera]

There's violent aspects to Islam, but it's not a violent religion.

[EnragedMaldivians]

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

This is my view. Al Qaeda are influenced bu Qutbists, who are afraid of the influence Secular/Western culture might have on Islamic holy lands. They commit acts of terrorism, to deliberately get Westen countries to over-stretch, over-react, and paint them as Crusaders in the eyes of everyday Muslims, and perhaps forster a sense of unity against an aggressor that will lead them to reject the tenets of Western culture hopefully galvanise them to overthrow their "secular" dictators, and rally around a restored Caliphate. It's not so much that they hate you, it's that they want to expolit inter-faith hostility and paranoia about terrorism to the benefit of their political agenda.

Make no mistake about it, the real enemies of Al-Qaeda are liberal Muslims (and shi'ites perhaps) - who they hope to conflate as being tacit agents of the cultural imperialists. It's an ideological battle to swing the moderates or everyday Muslims to - even if not necessarily to their side, against liberalism. Hence why they bank of Western responses to terrorism to be disproportianate.

Oh, and then there's getting rid of the Zionists as well.

So yes, they are not really out for world conquest - that's just rhetoric; but I think it is false to say they are not religiously motivated. It's just that no mainstream version of Islamic theology can really be used to support their methods, including draconian fundementalist schools. Terrorism becomes a red-herring that people can abuse to avoid engaging in debate about the actual content of Islam because a caricature has become the point of reference.

Also the "Great Satan" was a quote by Rurullah Khomeini, who was shi'ite. Al Qaeda are Sunni, and hate the Iranians and Shia.

[Sierra Lobo]

You implied his stating that other nations have violent cultures is a red herring, thus suggesting the only violent culture in existence is the Middle East.

I don't think you understand what "red herring" means.

yes, I know what it means....
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/02/ ... d-herring/

[Jahada]

Jahada wrote:

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.

I gave credit where credit was due and said his moral ideas were an improvement over what the pagan Arabs practiced. But as a role model in terms of how he conducted himself, yes he was inferior. Even if by the standards of his culture, he wasn't a "bad" person - I will always think of Jesus as the superior example to follow. Perhaps it was fortunate he never came to wield as much geo-political power as Muhammad.

Plus, what exactly did he introduce that was new aside from a reactionary form of pure Monotheism? His role, and moral advice was completely superfluous in the grand scheme of things.

Name one way in which Jesus' moral teachings were superior to Muhammad's.

Salvation through faith alone is completely idiotic; you won't find me defending that concept. However, it is not unanimously accepted by all Christian schools is it? Secondly, even Islam is partially salvation through faith alone, because your good works do not count unless you are Muslim. Now the Qur'an does flip flop on this with regard to Monotheists, but where does that leave...say, Ghandhi?

For that kind of thing, we leave it up to God. We Muslims consider it blasphemy to put word's in God's mouth and say who is going where after they die, unlike Christians, some of whom will bluntly go around telling non-Christians they're all going to hell*. But I will say that I personally believe people like Gandhi will be rewarded somehow. After all, the Quran does say, "Whoever does an atom's weight of good shall see it."

*Not an attack on Christianity or Christians in general.

Furthermore, in terms of not advocating punishment - it does not prohibit accountability being enforced through secular laws

Source?

When it comes to religious morals, there is a certain beauty in not allowing sinners to punish sinners, and leaving it up to god, no?

That is true, but we have to draw the line when one's moral behavior directly influences the outside world and people around them. For example, an Islamic state wouldn't punish people for not saying their prayers on time or something like that. But it would punish them for actions that are detrimental to others and to society, and for which there are predefined punishments. For example, the Islamic punishment for murder is death, but there is no worldly punishment for someone not praying. As such, an Islamic government would deal with the former, while keeping its nose out of the latter.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" vs "bury her up to her chest and stone her to death", is why I think Christianity is at least marginally preferable to Islam.

In other words, according to Christianity, there should be no system of criminal justice. Whether or not adultery is considered a crime is irrelevant. It still advocates letting people get away with crimes.

Tell me, how would a country like Japan or Sweden benefit from Shariah punishments? In what way is it relevant to anyone who doesn't want to be Muslim. Since Islamic marriages are the only ones available in my country, and I refuse to be celibate - short of self imposed exile, "fornication" is my only option. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with safe sex. What business is it of the state to punish me for it.

If you're dead-set on believing unmarried sex is OK, then I really can't answer your question or change your mind.

A) As if that's not intrusive and the punishments aren't ridiculously disproportionate. The fact that you think that it's your business what two men, or an unmarried woman and a man do in the privacy of their own home, and warrants you supporting legislation to punish their so called immorality, is testament to how your religion has no place in government. Apparently the prospect of people being stoned to death is some kind of irrelevant afterthought to your pursuit of a wholesome, lovely Islamic Utopia.

Saying religion has NO place in government, based on your disapproval for a handful of laws, is really stretching it. You still haven't managed to come up with any other examples to support claims of it being "intrusive".

[EnragedMaldivians]

Name one way in which Jesus' moral teachings were superior to Muhammad's.

"Conduct." His moral teachings were a superfluous rehash, along with circumstantial ad-hoc legislation.

Since you didn't answer my question, I would like to point out the Zakat is one of the nobler aspects of Islam.

Oh, and for what its worth:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

For that kind of thing, we leave it up to God. We Muslims consider it blasphemy to put word's in God's mouth and say who is going where after they die, unlike Christians, some of whom will bluntly go around telling non-Christians they're all going to hell*. But I will say that I personally believe people like Gandhi will be rewarded somehow. After all, the Quran does say, "Whoever does an atom's weight of good shall see it."

*Not an attack on Christianity or Christians in general

Nonesense. The Qur'an perfectly states that if anyone desires any other religion that Islam "Never will it be accepted of him." with some vague passages seeming to suggest an exception for Jews, Sabbians, (what the hell are they anyway?) and Christians. That you are not allowed to point at any one individual and make predictions does not discount the fact that polytheism is not acceptable in Islam, and polytheists do not go to heaven, whatever their good works.

And feel free to attack Christianity as much as you like, Jesus is the only figure I have any sympathy for.

Source?

That the lack of a divine punishment on earth wouldn't prohibit the functioning of secular laws, with regard to keeping people accountable for their crimes? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

In other words, according to Christianity, there should be no system of criminal justice. Whether or not adultery is considered a crime is irrelevant. It still advocates letting people get away with crimes.

This is what you support.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h ... 29,r:4,s:0

Hardly forgiving is it?

If you're dead-set on believing unmarried sex is OK, then I really can't answer your question or change your mind.

No, but you would like legislation in place that would put me in physical danger.

Secondly, adultery/cheating is one thing. Consensual sex in a stable, faithful relationship is quite another.

This is what Islamic apologism consists of: criticising Christianity for its flaws - refuting the caricature of ZOMBGEVILMOSLEMZGUNNABLOWUSALLUP!!! You fail to make a case for how shariah law is a superior system of government. Again; tell me, how would Sweden and Japan benefit from accepting shariah law?

Saying religion has NO place in government, based on your disapproval for a handful of laws, is really stretching it. You still haven't managed to come up with any other examples to support claims of it being "intrusive".

Really, that handful is enough for me if it advocates fucking killing someone for...well...fucking. And since you beleive in the afterlife, don't you beleive that God will punish them anway, if you are so worried about accountability?

Furthermore I have stated that your stance on Apostasy, while with some arguable merit, is not the traditional scholarly stance, and stands the risk of being supplanted by a school of jurisprudence that does punish a thought crime.

Here's what you should do Mr.Moderate:

Say the Shahada. Pray. Fast. Give the Zakat. Go on the Pilgrimage. Shut up about it.

Don't concern yourself with what other people do in the bedroom in the meanwhile.

Apparently not wanting people stoned to death is "stretching it"...good grief...

Lakuhm Dheenakum Walyadeen indeed.