Islam a Religion of Peace?

[secondeve]

In fact, according to the Bible, God Himself has sent people to kill.

Aside from that, there are many who have taken it upon themselves to kill in God's Name, and that is where the difference is. You may not accept it, but there is a difference.

Then explain it. As far as I can see, it would only be possible to make such a distinction if one were God and omnipotent, to distinguish between what was God's will and what humans did (mistakenly) for the same reason. If such a distinction does exist, it is impossible for human beings to make it - which means that it is a moot point.

However, your posts never really go on to describe the crimes of atheists, which leads me to get the impression that you really only care to bring to light the crimes of religious followers.

There's a reason for this: except to satisfy you, such a litany would serve no purpose. I was making a point about how both the Bible and the Qu'ran are open to violent interpretations. It might seem to you that the bigger issue is really how naughty athiests are - in which case, I suggest you start a thread about it. But here, now, the original question was about Islam being or not being a religion of peace. I deviated into Christianity and Biblical interpretation because it is, in my mind, a parallel argument: I felt that hypocricy was obscuring the similarities when it comes to violent interpretations of both religions. This is nothing more than an attempt to sidetrack the conversation away from the OP question, and to accuse me of being hypocritical for sticking to the topic rather than focusing on the evils of athiesm. Of course athiests commit crimes, and I've admitted so freely. It just isn't what we're discussing here.

There's the twist, right? Christianity or Christ? The followers of Christ have done much damage to His Holy Name with their actions, but the argument remains; the ones that have done this, were they truly followers of the Word?

Here we go again. The true Word, as you see it, is an interpretation. Yes, we have the Bible - but the Bible can be read in many different ways. You cannot claim to have the definitive reading; nobody can. So any such judgements as to who is right, historically speaking, are only differences of interpretation. Nothing more.

You may not claim that Christians or religious folks of a different bend are not the only ones killing, but you sure like to bring it up a lot.

Apparently, you've missed the point of my earlier post entirely. I was arguing that it was hypocritical to claim that the Qu'ran innately lends itself to terrorism, and that this is evidenced by the fact that there are Islamic terrorists, but that the Crusaders simply had Christianity wrong. If violent Christians had just got the interpretation wrong, why should violent Muslims be any different - why is it wrong that everyday Muslims say that the terrorists have got it wrong? This is what I was saying. If you take issue with this line of reasoning, then stick to the topic and say why. At present, you're deliberately misconstruing my intentions.

Nobody has the "definitive" Christianity next to which the Crusaders are proven unChristian; you have only your own interpretations - unless God has descended with a list of specific annotations, and I've not been informed of it.

Is the above statement untrue?

It is untrue. Here....

The Bible is not a definitive interpretation of itself. Yes, the book exists - but it doesn't have little footnotes explaining the one, correct, absolute meaning to be inferred from each and every verse. If it did, there wouldn't be a single doctrinal discussion on Worthy, or question about what a certain parable means. That is what I'm saying.

Edited August 28, 2006 by secondeve

[ted]

There's a reason for this: except to satisfy you, such a litany would serve no purpose. I was making a point about how both the Bible and the Qu'ran are open to violent interpretations. It might seem to you that the bigger issue is really how naughty athiests are - in which case, I suggest you start a thread about it.

But here, now, the original question was about Islam being or not being a religion of peace.

Follow me.....

I deviated into Christianity and Biblical interpretation because it is, in my mind, a parallel argument: I felt that hypocricy was obscuring the similarities when it comes to violent interpretations of both religions.

Well now.

I guess it's ok for you to deviate from the OP, but not others.

Under this argument, you should have started a new thread as well, but you decided your parallel was good enough to bring to the table.

So then, is mine, I reckon.

And for your records, my bigger point is not that how nasty atheists are, but that you continually like to point out how bad Christians are. No matter what the subject is, you will bring up how bad Christianity is for the world. It's boring, and it gets old. You can, as demonstrated in this one thread among many, slip in your points and decide that there is a parallel argument for which you may now use them.

Rarely, unless taken to task, do you bring up how people who do not believe in God can be dangerous.

Oh, maybe a side comment or two, but that's about it.

Now, if you please, stay on the original topic without deciding to compare, would you?

If it's wrong for me to deviate, then it's wrong for you, as well.

That's my point.

Anything else can be taken care of by starting a new thread, right?

t.

[secondeve]

There's a reason for this: except to satisfy you, such a litany would serve no purpose. I was making a point about how both the Bible and the Qu'ran are open to violent interpretations. It might seem to you that the bigger issue is really how naughty athiests are - in which case, I suggest you start a thread about it.

But here, now, the original question was about Islam being or not being a religion of peace.

Follow me.....

I deviated into Christianity and Biblical interpretation because it is, in my mind, a parallel argument: I felt that hypocricy was obscuring the similarities when it comes to violent interpretations of both religions.

Well now.

I guess it's ok for you to deviate from the OP, but not others.

Under this argument, you should have started a new thread as well, but you decided your parallel was good enough to bring to the table.

So then, is mine, I reckon.

Please have a look at what I've argued. You've picked up on one word - deviate - and not read any further. I was talking about Islam and whether or not it was a peaceful religion. In order to convey my opinion, I used Christianity as a parallel - in this sense, perhaps a more appropriate word would be metaphor. The person I was responding to stated their views of Christianity and Islam as a comparison but the view was not uniform, i.e., even though what they said about Christianity could just have easily applied to Islam, they had stated that this wasn't so. The comparison impacted directly on the topic at hand, and I responded accordingly. You have taken issue with my argument, but instead of discussing this in the context of the OP, you've levelled a complaint at me, that I haven't been criticizing athiesm enough. This complaint is irrelevant to the question in hand. Your parallel responded directly to what I said about Christianity, which was only half my argument - you haven't touched at all on the OP, which was the peacefulness or violence of Islam.

Edited August 28, 2006 by secondeve

[ted]

You have taken issue with my argument, but instead of discussing this in the context of the OP, you've levelled a complaint at me, that I haven't been criticizing athiesm enough. This complaint is irrelevant to the question in hand.

Nope, but who cares, right? You introduced the argument as a parallel, can we not comment on that?

Ok, just learning the rules.

Your parallel responded directly to what I said about Christianity, which was only half my argument - you haven't touched at all on the OP, which was the peacefulness or violence of Islam.

I didn't intend to touch the OP in my last two posts, so in that sense, I was successful. As well, I only was aiming at that half of your comments in the first place- the ones regarding Christianity.

But I will address the OP in a few minutes.

t.

[ted]

I have posted a few articles relating to Islam from a Christian perspective. The most recent threat posed by British islamist group to blow up to 10 British Airways trans-atlantic flights and some US airlines so as to kill in a massive scale is yet another example of radical Islam holding the non Muslim world to ransom.

The question is, are they really a fanatical group of muslims who subscribe to a brand of radical Islam or are they just being good Muslim following in the foot-step of Osama bin Laden and their Prophet Mohammed?

Go to:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/001/1.32.html

I regards to the OP,

There really is a radical, fanatical group of muslims who subscribe to a brand of fundemental islam and seek to accomplish world domination through this religion. It is stated very much so in Qutb's Milestones, which was published in 1964. This is one of the more recent works which many of islam's followers use to guide them and explain away their actions and belief system. There are many other works which are used in the same manner, as well.

A good, basic study of radical islam can be found here:

http://www.brucegourley.com/fundamentalism...talismintro.htm

It's pretty generic, but answers a lot of questions as to why they think and act the way they do today.

So yes, there is deffinately a radical following of islam which has stated it's goal of converting the world to islam, offering those who do not convert a system of paying them off not to kill us, or, finally, killing the rest of the people of the world off if they do not accept either of the first two conditions

It's real, it's happening, and it's coming for you whether we choose to believe it or not.

Now, are they just being "good muslims" following in the foot steps of Osama or Muhammed?

Well, I think the choice of words there has a lot to be desired. Of the adherents of islam, I cannot guess as to the percentage of radicals desribed in the link compared to ones who do not agree with this movement. I cannot guess whether it is the standard among it's followers.

I will guess, though, that there are many more followers of islam who do not share the views of the radicals than there is that do. Just a guess, though.

From a Christian standpoint, I am deeply concerned about the rising tide of violent, radical islam, no matter how many followers it has. Blowing people up because one thinks their religion is better than the other guys is a scary notion.

t.

[artsylady]

This is an appalling double standard. You mention that the Crusades was obviously the result of a misinterpretation of the Bible, because you are familiar with Christianity and know what everything means - to you - in context. In the very next breath, however, you say that the Qu'ran is being interpreted incorrectly anbut that it's a violent book anyway.

No, I didn't say that. I believe the Koran is being interpretted correctly by terrorists, unfortunately.

Which it is. But so is the Bible. You cannot take a casual browse through the Old Testament and tell me that killing the firstborn children of the Egyptians, or the rape and murder of the concubine, aren't acts of violence. The point being, the whole issue hinges on interpretation.

Rape? I don't think so.

The violence that occurred in the Old Testament happened during one period of history - that is when Moses was delivering the Israelites from slavery to the Promised Land. God knew what needed to be done to preserve the Jewish people who were also preserving his book. Obviously he did a good job because we still have the book and the people. The fact that there are still Jewish people around today is a miracle. And if you look at the travels of the Israelites, you'll see that God also ordered them to pass through many lands peacefully, paying the natives of the land in silver for whatever they used. So no one would ever be justified in killing based on these verses. Obviously God handed down the laws "Thou Shalt Not Murder" so we are clear that this is His will. Many Christians believe that war in every aspect is wrong. I don't beleive that myself but respect their opinion.

Then when Jesus came along, it should have been abundantly clear that Christianity is a peaceful religion. As stated, during the crusades, commoners weren't allowed to read the scriptures. It was a penalty resulting in death.

There is no double standard here. Yes, there was violence during a period of history as recorded in the Bible. But we are clearly ordered to love, forgive, turn the other cheek, etc. so if some are acting contrary to this (like the Klu Klux Klan for instance) they clearly are not acting like Christians.

However, there are hundreds of verses in the Koran ordering Muslims to kill. And female genital mutilation and wife beating are condoned as well. If you studied Islam you would know this.

So, if one is acting in violence and calling himself a Christian, he is obviously misinterpretting things and he seriously lacks understanding. If a Muslim is killing non Muslims, he is following the demands of his faith.

Why it is EVER called a religion of peace, I don't know. Do you?

It is OK for modern Christians to say that the Crusaders weren't real Christians, and thereby distance what they believe from what was supposedly done in the same of it; yet it is not similarly OK for average, everyday Muslims to say that Islamic terrorists aren't real Muslims. No; in their case, the Qu'ran is a brutish book which naturally lends itself to violence and killing.

Yes it does lend itself to violence and killing. How do you think Mohammed garnered followers in the first place? He took them by force. Then, when Egypt was no threat whatsoever, he went and invaded there as well, killing anyone who wouldn't follow Islam.

So yes. Go on and complain about how violent everyone else is, while simultaneously declaring that every brutal act ever committed in the name of Christianity wasn't backed up by the Bible at all, even though almost all of them, by varying forms of interpretation, warped or otherwise, were. Continue narrowing the "real" followers of your religion down to those who play nice with the other kids, even if the bullies wear crosses, too. Eventually, you'll end up with a membership of one: Jesus, because according to Christian doctrine, everyone else is a sinner, and as all sins are equal, it makes no sense that you should cast the misguided but pious Crusader from your ranks, but not the devout theif. Own up to your own history. Whether you like it or not, the skeletons fell out of the closet years ago; all you're doing now is trying to stuff them back under the bed, drag them over to the neighbour's house or create a diversion by yelling and pointing at the people across the way who are, (the violent, unscrupulous devils!) doing exactly the same thing as you. It's giving the rest of us a headache, if nothing else.

Do you understand that during the current age, since we have access to scriptures, it's clear that what happened in the crusades was wrong, even according to the Bible?

My friend who was studying philosophy was in a class discussion about how the crusades are STILL the major argument against Christianity, even though they took place during a short period of history, a LONG time ago, and were obviously contrary to the commands of Jesus Christ. People like you still enjoy doing this for some reason. Yes, there is a bloody history there. It was short lived and just plain wrong.

[artsylady]

I should also mention that the crusades were wrong in their "convert or die" mentality because this philosophy was NEVER mentioned in the Bible. Even if the commoners who were ordered to kill at the time had access only to the Old Testament scriptures they would have seen that this kind of conversion tactic is just wrong.

Another thing is that way back in Genesis there is mention of the 'sons of God' having relations with the daughters of men and bearing offspring. Many like myself beleive the 'sons of God' as mentioned here were demon-like and not human. If you study scripture, you'll see that the only time 'sons of God' were mentioned in the OT was in reference to angels, demons or Adam (because Adam had no earthly father). The Cannanites became the tribe that was masacred and they weren't fully human and they were sacrificing children to their gods and would have annhialated the Jews if the could have. But, as stated earlier, the Jews were preserved and so was God's word. We are looking at a period of history - not a command for all to kill others if they don't convert.

In any case, the 'convert or die' mentality IS right in line with the Koran. Look on an online Koran and type in 'kill'. It's not difficult to see that the terrorists aren't really manipulating anything at all.

I sincerely hope you can see the difference.

[billie]

Well, the problem with the Qu'ran and terrorism vs. peace is that there are passages commanding both.

[pointer]

Well, the problem with the Qu'ran and terrorism vs. peace is that there are passages commanding both.

That is unsurprising. The Qur'an is a hotch-potch of ideas, without plan, structure or shape, deliberately written to be ambiguous to permit double-speak, rather like Roman Catholic theology. It contradicts itself quite often.

[billie]

Well, the problem with the Qu'ran and terrorism vs. peace is that there are passages commanding both.

That is unsurprising. The Qur'an is a hotch-potch of ideas, without plan, structure or shape, deliberately written to be ambiguous to permit double-speak, rather like Roman Catholic theology. It contradicts itself quite often.

For the second time in recent history, I find myself agreeing with you.