Islam: A violent religion?

[Primorum Libertorum]

The values of a religion means nothing if the people who preached it, and the people who believe it do not put what they're taught into practice.

How much worth is a belief that is not practiced? Is it even appropriate to call a lip service a "belief"? Isn't that rather exactly the one thing that it is not?

At the same time, I do think that providing moral and social support to the guys who do the dirty work is quite an important contribution. I don't have to commit a crime myself to be guilty, it is totally sufficient if I provide another person with the means for it and protect him afterwards.

And even if the followers disobeyed the ideological content: How would that make the content any better?

[Innsmothe]

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.

Islam is anything but "supposed to be decentralised and 'open to interpretation'". But that is irrelevant. If it is so undefinable, then it is also impossible to claim that calling it violent would be a generalization

Criticizing a monolithic framework or presentation of Islam isn't "No true Scotsman".

Yes it is. One has to have a definition of that term in mind, otherwise it would be nonsensical to use it. Now people use to have a "flexible" concept of ideologies that boils down to "If it is about something favorable, then my favorite ideology and its members are united. If it is about something that makes it look bad, then there are so many fractions that nothing can be said about the ideology in general". That is only a very slight variation of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Well, I just turn it around, as I said. It puts these people into the dilemma I described: Giving up their double-standards would make them vulnerable to criticism, but keeping them up makes it impossible for them to retort.

You are quite ignorant.
There are competing schools of Islam, all have one point of agreement.

The book is flexible.

[The Floridian Coast]

In my view, religious violence is a combination of religion plus poverty. If Muslims were the majority in America and Christians were the majority in the Middle East, we'd have a reversal of the current violence ratio between Muslims and Christians.

[Innsmothe]

In my view, religious violence is a combination of religion plus poverty. If Muslims were the majority in America and Christians were the majority in the Middle East, we'd have a reversal of the current violence ratio between Muslims and Christians.

This^

The root cause of most unrest is poverty, which is why wealth distribution and AID packages are vital.

[Orangi]

The Koran [Which I read some of in an English translation] is filled with passages about nonviolence towards both Muslims and non-Muslims. It does justify war in some cases, but condemns the killing of innocents. While Koran talks about the Muhammad's jihad against his enemies in Mecca, Muhammad told told his follows that the most important jihad was the one fought inside for his soul. 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? People have long used religion as a justification for violent acts. Is Islam violent?

Yep. Stuck in the 12th century, this religion is.

[Primorum Libertorum]

You are quite ignorant.

Translation: "You are superior to me in education, critical thinking and logical reasoning, and I hate you for that." Well, I accept your utter and complete intellectual capitulation

By now you should have realized that your "No true Scotsman" fallacy won't get you anywhere. I suggest you come back when you dare to bring up a definition of "Islam". You need to do that even before spewing out more false and unsubstantiated claims, although that would be the next thing you needed to improve. I honestly do not expect you starting to argue rationally, so keep in mind: Everything you say until then is only further proof to what I say, since ex falso quodlibet

[Innsmothe]

The Koran [Which I read some of in an English translation] is filled with passages about nonviolence towards both Muslims and non-Muslims. It does justify war in some cases, but condemns the killing of innocents. While Koran talks about the Muhammad's jihad against his enemies in Mecca, Muhammad told told his follows that the most important jihad was the one fought inside for his soul. 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? People have long used religion as a justification for violent acts. Is Islam violent?

Yep. Stuck in the 12th century, this religion is.

Bit silly for you to say so. There is no universal agreement on what Islam 'is'.
Shiia,Sunni,Wahhabi, Ibadi etc.

No Mohammedan worships the same as anyother.

[Zilam]

Islam was spread partially on violence. Modern day Islam? Not as violent as it could be, considering its past.

Though not as brutal compared to the Crusader's "No booty, no prisoner!" motto during the ancient medieval war against the Muslims.

The Crusades always get brought up. So I will address that REAL quick. Yes, it was started as "Holy War" to take back the Holy Lands, however, I find it hard to say that the Crusaders were following Christian doctrine at all. There isn't really any wiggle room on this issue. As opposed to Islam, Christian scripture doesn't instruct using physical force. Plain and simple. Especially considering that Jesus told his followers to not worry about earthly things, and instead focus on the Spiritual realm. A piece of land is quite earthly, and not of the spiritual. Jesus said that if his kingdom were on this earth, his followers wouldn't have allowed him to be arrested.

Now, you might try going Old Covenant on me. "But the OT is full of violence!!!!" Well guess what? In Christianity, most of the OT is considered obsolete, and just history. Proof of this?

Hebrews 8 6But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

I can quote many Christian verses which say that we are to be at peace with all, praying for enemies, even taking care of their needs. Paul says that we should be at peace with people as much as it is in our control, and to let God be the one who takes vengeance on those opposed to us.

So as you can see, it is quite hard to say that the Crusaders were in any way following what Christ taught. You can't call them Christian if they are not producing the fruit of the Spirit.

On the other hand, violence can be a useful tool for Islam, and Mohammad used it liberally. For example, the Hadith record an instance where a Pagan poet wrote mean things about Mohammad. What happened. She was breast feeding her child and Muhammad had her killed. For simply writing unflattering things. He actually had many poets killed. That is the moral example of Islam.

So it is quite ignorant to say 1) Crusaders were in any way Christian. They might have called themselves that day and night. Their actions proved other wise 2) Christianity, which specifically promoted peace, is comparable to Islam which allows for force to be used. Its like night and day between the two.

[Great Nepal]

The Koran [Which I read some of in an English translation] is filled with passages about nonviolence towards both Muslims and non-Muslims. It does justify war in some cases, but condemns the killing of innocents. While Koran talks about the Muhammad's jihad against his enemies in Mecca, Muhammad told told his follows that the most important jihad was the one fought inside for his soul. 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? People have long used religion as a justification for violent acts. Is Islam violent?

Yep. Stuck in the 12th century, this religion is.

Your superior argument with excellent reasoning along with supportive evidence has made me change my mind completely. Congratulations.

[Teotan]

Is christianity which has allowed slavery, overpopulation, and rape bad?

I didn't realize overpopulation was now equivalent to slavery or rape. Interesting, considering that it is two non-Christian nations which are largely overpopulated...

The bible says you shall fill the world or something like that. The reason non christian nations have more people is because contraceptives are more taboo and more expensive there.

[Primorum Libertorum]

There is no universal agreement on what Islam 'is'.

If a "universal agreement" were necessary for using a term, you were not even allowed to use the words "religion", "god" etc. Show me your "universal agreements" for these definitions, and I will come up effortlessly with individuals and groups that disagree with them. You are trying to hide behind criteria that you don't even consider valid yourself.

[Innsmothe]

There is no universal agreement on what Islam 'is'.

If a "universal agreement" were necessary for using a term, you were not even allowed to use the words "religion", "god" etc. Show me your "universal agreements" for these definitions, and I will come up effortlessly with individuals and groups that disagree with them. You are trying to hide behind criteria that you don't even consider valid yourself.

I do not hide, I try to inform that there is no agreement between Muslims on what defines the perfect follower of Mohammed and his patron Allah.

[Redzon]

Though not as brutal compared to the Crusader's "No booty, no prisoner!" motto during the ancient medieval war against the Muslims.

The Crusades always get brought up. So I will address that REAL quick. Yes, it was started as "Holy War" to take back the Holy Lands, however, I find it hard to say that the Crusaders were following Christian doctrine at all. There isn't really any wiggle room on this issue. As opposed to Islam, Christian scripture doesn't instruct using physical force. Plain and simple. Especially considering that Jesus told his followers to not worry about earthly things, and instead focus on the Spiritual realm. A piece of land is quite earthly, and not of the spiritual. Jesus said that if his kingdom were on this earth, his followers wouldn't have allowed him to be arrested.

Now, you might try going Old Covenant on me. "But the OT is full of violence!!!!" Well guess what? In Christianity, most of the OT is considered obsolete, and just history. Proof of this?

Hebrews 8 6But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

I can quote many Christian verses which say that we are to be at peace with all, praying for enemies, even taking care of their needs. Paul says that we should be at peace with people as much as it is in our control, and to let God be the one who takes vengeance on those opposed to us.

So as you can see, it is quite hard to say that the Crusaders were in any way following what Christ taught. You can't call them Christian if they are not producing the fruit of the Spirit.

On the other hand, violence can be a useful tool for Islam, and Mohammad used it liberally. For example, the Hadith record an instance where a Pagan poet wrote mean things about Mohammad. What happened. She was breast feeding her child and Muhammad had her killed. For simply writing unflattering things. He actually had many poets killed. That is the moral example of Islam.

So it is quite ignorant to say 1) Crusaders were in any way Christian. They might have called themselves that day and night. Their actions proved other wise 2) Christianity, which specifically promoted peace, is comparable to Islam which allows for force to be used. Its like night and day between the two.

The same thing can be said about all [extremist], [jihadist], [terrorist] which call themselves Muslim. They don't follow the Islam doctrine or believed in a perverted version of it.

[Juristonia]

No religion is violent on itself. Extremist hiding behind religious books could be violent.

For all I care, I could form a self-proclaimed Buddha blessed group and go to commit terrorist strikes claiming "to be spreading the teaching of Buddhism to misguided people - to bring them to light of god" and saying I am doing it all "to ensure eternal peace in world".

In my view, religious violence is a combination of religion plus poverty. If Muslims were the majority in America and Christians were the majority in the Middle East, we'd have a reversal of the current violence ratio between Muslims and Christians.

x2

[EnragedMaldivians]

There is no honest debate on Islam possible in the West.
Western fundies have created such a deranged caricature of the Islamic faith and its adhererents, that it’s now become a point of reference in these debates; the most prominent sides being the idiots who advocate that caricatutre of a hive-minded deranged Jihadist majority bent on world conquest; and the equally annoying horde of enlightened liberals who either use it as an opportunity not only to refute said caricature, but point out what a lovely, wonderful, faith Islam is (Racists aren’t the only one who cherry pick quotes out of context), especially compared to the ebil Old testament.

Reasonable criticism of Islam is immediately shouted down as bigoted due to knee-jerk association; pseudo-moderaters get to push for “reasonable” sharia law, (which still executes apostates, beats adulterers, and punishes homosexual acts with death ) and not appear as extremist because they can present their views articulately, don’t support terrorism, and contradict aforementioned image of “derpa derpa Mohamed Jihad”. Decent Muslims get discriminated against in the West, and fringe group lunatics keep stereotypes alive and prominent enough to get the whole cycle to repeat itself.


Meanwhile; the real problems endemic in Muslim majority countries, chiefly a scholarly/popular(?) opposition to secularism, human rights abuses, poverty, rampant sexism are jettisoned in the media, because they aren't as sensanionalist as terrorism. Where they are pointed out, you either get a dishonest comparison with the west (they have the face covering Hijab, we have playboy; they want to execute apostates, and punish homosexuals; well some of our fundies want school prayer “we’re just as bad as them” self flaggelating types.), or where said comparison is legitimate, it still constitutes an et-tu fallacy.

And no it is not necessarily a violent religion; just an irritating one. Lakum Dheen’akum Waly’adeen.

You are quite ignorant.
There are competing schools of Islam, all have one point of agreement.

The book is flexible.

Yes; it isn't supposed to be in theory, but it is in practice.

That being said, I do not like any of the major schools Sunni of jurisprudence, except Shaafi', because thats how I was raised. Those Qur'an only Muslims are alright too I suppose.

Wahhabis/Salaafis/Hanbalis make me sick, wether they support terrorism or not.

This^

The root cause of most unrest is poverty, which is why wealth distribution and AID packages are vital.

No it isn't; most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi-Arabia, which is a middle income country. Granted it does have its poverty, but the hijackers were all college educated I beleive. It's a contributing cause; not the root cause. If poverty and exploitation were all it required for terrorism, the Tibetans would be on a Crusade against China.

In my view it's a narrative of exploitation provided by opportunistic religious figures; (let's face it, I understand the occasional need for realpolitick, but the West has been very naughty with their support for compacent dictators.) along with theological opposition of the growing appeal of secular Western Culture over largely conservative societies, who have not yet accepted the need to seperate religion from government. Turkey being one important exception.


In the case of Bin Laden, I agree with the theory that he wants continued Western internvention, either as a method of bankrupting the West, or exploiting the narrative of imperialism as a unifying force, that will mobilize the Ummah in overthrowing their Western puppets, and hopefully rally around a Khalifa for political leadership. Looks like he partially got what he wants, but not in a context that he could possibly appreciate as positive.

I haven't slept in two days, and I am very angry. I hope that was a coherent post.

Why am I on nationstates? Goodnight.

[Of the Quendi]

The Crusades always get brought up. So I will address that REAL quick. Yes, it was started as "Holy War" to take back the Holy Lands, however, I find it hard to say that the Crusaders were following Christian doctrine at all. There isn't really any wiggle room on this issue. As opposed to Islam, Christian scripture doesn't instruct using physical force. Plain and simple. Especially considering that Jesus told his followers to not worry about earthly things, and instead focus on the Spiritual realm. A piece of land is quite earthly, and not of the spiritual. Jesus said that if his kingdom were on this earth, his followers wouldn't have allowed him to be arrested.

Now, you might try going Old Covenant on me. "But the OT is full of violence!!!!" Well guess what? In Christianity, most of the OT is considered obsolete, and just history. Proof of this?



I can quote many Christian verses which say that we are to be at peace with all, praying for enemies, even taking care of their needs. Paul says that we should be at peace with people as much as it is in our control, and to let God be the one who takes vengeance on those opposed to us.

So as you can see, it is quite hard to say that the Crusaders were in any way following what Christ taught. You can't call them Christian if they are not producing the fruit of the Spirit.

On the other hand, violence can be a useful tool for Islam, and Mohammad used it liberally. For example, the Hadith record an instance where a Pagan poet wrote mean things about Mohammad. What happened. She was breast feeding her child and Muhammad had her killed. For simply writing unflattering things. He actually had many poets killed. That is the moral example of Islam.

So it is quite ignorant to say 1) Crusaders were in any way Christian. They might have called themselves that day and night. Their actions proved other wise 2) Christianity, which specifically promoted peace, is comparable to Islam which allows for force to be used. Its like night and day between the two.

The same thing can be said about all [extremist], [jihadist], [terrorist] which call themselves Muslim. They don't follow the Islam doctrine or believed in a perverted version of it.

Christianity is not averse to war or violence. While Jesus never encouraged it he didn't condemn it either. I believe there is a passage in the bible where some soldiers ask Jesus about their profession and he tells them that as long as they obey the orders of their superiors and don't rape or rob then they do no wrong. I can't remember the place though.

[Osthia]

Of course not! It's only because of those terrorists that Islam has been given a bad reputation.

[Idealismania]

Is Islam violent? Well, is Christianity violent? After all, there were the crusades... the witch hunts... and now bombing abortion clinics. There will always be radical a**holes, no matter what religion. But, I don't think this justifies calling the entire religion violent.

The religion espouses violence, in the same way as Christianity and Judaism. It's a violent religion, and 'the others are too' doesn't really cut it. Whether there are any truly popular religions which don't condone, and in fact encourage, violence in certain contexts is a seperate issue.

Christianity doesn't espouse violence. Show me in any Christian texts where Jesus advocated the use of any violence or force on another human being.

[Yootwopia]

First of all I find the Yugoslavian problem solved, or at least swept under the rug.

It's the latter.

Secondly imho the war was about the Slobo's influences, not the religion.

Part of it was supposedly religious, other elements were supposedly ethnic etc. (as ever it was actually about resources and demography but that's never stopped things before).

I've traveled through Yugoslavia with my parents twice (july 1989, may 1990) spending there few weeks and we couldn't feel literally any tension, the religious one in particular. Our friends from Slavonski Brod when asked what's going on they cursed the hyperinflation and the economy in general. No word about the religion or nationalism.
As we hosted them later in Poland, when they had to leave their town, we talked a lot. They told us what was going on. It was all about politics, not the orthodox church on every corner.

Uhu, well you may have missed some events since 1990.

[Idealismania]

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.

But racism and religion are two different things. The philosophy of racism is that some races are inherantly better than others where as in some religions (and this applies to Islam as far as I have been told by followers) is to serve a loving and peaceful God. I agree the philosophy of a belief system must be examined just as much as the actions of its followers, but saying all religion is the same as racism is an unfair sterotype, especially since many religions are so different.

I will say that not all religions have good philosophys, and I am not defending those that are based on violence and hate. But since this topic is about Islam, I wanted to defend it since I am to understand it is supposed to be peaceful.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Bill Maher in this segment with Rep. Keith Ellison on the Congressional Hearings over radicalization of muslims in the U.S. Bill gets tough at about 7 min. and 35 sec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN0FnTWExG4

[New Roccoland]

"We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us." - Golda Meir

"The Qur'an, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. I invite readers who haven't read the Qur'an to simply read the book. Take out a highlighter and highlight those lines that counsel the believer to despise infidels, and you will find a book that is just covered with highlighter." - Sam Harris

[Zilam]

The same thing can be said about all [extremist], [jihadist], [terrorist] which call themselves Muslim. They don't follow the Islam doctrine or believed in a perverted version of it.

No. See Mohammad made violence as a viable option by being a moral leader who used violence in many occasions. Jesus on the other hand, as a moral leader spoke peace. If a Muslim wants to be more holy, they follow the example of Mohammad, him being the final and greatest Rasul, just like Christians follow the example of Christ if they want to be more holy. So if a Muslim is following Mohammad's example to try and be a better Muslim, and his example was to use violence in what ever case, doesn't that show that Islam has violence at its core?

[Yootwopia]

Christianity doesn't espouse violence. Show me in any Christian texts where Jesus advocated the use of any violence or force on another human being.

Jesus is God, God smites plenty of people in Revelations, QED, not to mention the fact that most people see Christianity as OT and NewT together, and the Old Testament has a fair bit of casual violence in it.

[Wiztopia]

Christianity doesn't espouse violence. Show me in any Christian texts where Jesus advocated the use of any violence or force on another human being.

Jesus is God, God smites plenty of people in Revelations, QED, not to mention the fact that most people see Christianity as OT and NewT together, and the Old Testament has a fair bit of casual violence in it.

Son of God you mean.