Islam a Religion of Peace?

[LadyRaven]

You want to say that each and every Muslim is violent? Fine. I can make the same assertion about each and every Christian. But I won't be right, and neither, Vox, will you.

Kindly point out where and when did I say every Muslim is violent? I was not referring to ALL Muslims, I was referring to the British islamist group whose intention was to commit mass murder in a massive scale, so please get your fact right.

2nd, those Christians who committed violent act did so not in accordance to the teaching of Christ. If you can find anything in His teaching advocating violence please show me.

That question was as deliberately inflamatory as someone saying to us..."Are they really a fanatical group of Christians who subscribe to a radical brand of fundamentalism or are they just being good Christians following in the footsteps of Fred Phelps or Constantine?

Your question would have been a good one if you had dropped it after "Good Muslim." you can't place the other information into the question unless you can back it...but in order to back it you'd have to already have the information you are already asking for. If you are going to make any logical deductions about Osama you have to first determine what is good and what is radical according to the Koran. Instead you are already assuming what you are trying to prove/say.

Islam is a false religion. Radical Islamism is dangerous to everyone who is not a radical islamist. I'm no fan believe me, but if you're gonna have a discussion you can't assume your point before you prove it.

Again I was only referring to the British Islamist group. And Constantine certainly was not the founder of Christianity. Please do not twist my word.

I assume nothing. However you can certainly assume a point and than prove it by providing evidence, what's wrong with that? It is a legitimate question based on the article in the link provided, unless of course you have not bothered to read the whole article.

Your title is "Islam a religion of Peace?" Therefore you necessarily bring into the discussion all muslims. The article you posted also is slanted to make you consider the question from a negative pov.

You also bring them all into the discussion when you ask if (this particular group) are "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?

This is because if they are just being "good muslims" then all "good muslims" would be justified in behaving the same way. Therefore Osama would be a good muslim. However if this is incorrect, then Osama would not be a good muslim and you have placed him grammatically as one when you say "good muslim following in the foot-step of Osama..."

This is what I meant be assuming what you are trying to prove.

[georgesbluegirl]

ladyraven made the point i was getting at: though you began by referring to a specific group, this was a question that was broad to begin with - basically, you were asking if all muslims supposed to follow the kind of islam that terrorists do.

as for your questions about sources, islam is SO cultural and SO embedded that it's almost impossible for a non-muslim to "get." better sources come right from the horse's mouth. you should also be aware that there are many, many different schools of thought within the body of the islamic religion, the primary split of course being sunni/shi'a (who have historically been enemies - one of the reasons that osama and saddam wouldn't have worked together is that they belong to different sides of that battle. it's very recent that we're seeing sunni/shi'a collaboration or discussion).

many muslims do not support terrorists attacks. the support of osama, etc. in various corners of the globe (specifically, for the most part in islamic states) has a lot to do with culture; nevertheless, you can't say that most would condone terrorism. most just want to be able to practice freely.

jade: one muslim does not a majority make. besides, those who interpret the koran to the violent extreme that islamist terrorists do often miss something key in the interpretation; military/violent action in the koran is generally very tempered. for example, a quote that osama bin laden used to use frequently (the exact escapes me right now, i'll look it up later) is followed by a line saying that if an enemy should not wish to fight, do not force war upon them.

[Arialia]

If you can find anything in His teaching advocating violence please show me.

Gladly...

1. If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:26)

2. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37)

3. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

4. I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! (Luke 12:49)

5. Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division. (Luke 12:51)

6. Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. (Gospel of Thomas)

[secondeve]

I asked a real muslim how she felt. It wasnt the answer you would think GBG.

Repeating what someone else said, the thoughts of one Muslim are hardly definitive for the whole population.

the Qu'ran and the Bible both leave ample space in the reading for belligerent, first-strike, aggressive defence of the faith.

Can you prove this as far as the Bible goes? Let us examine actual Bible quotes to see what meaning is intended by them.

Exodus: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. - The Salem Witch Trials, which in all accuracy had nothing to do with witchcraft and everything to do with fear, made good use of this. The command is so explicit that it was ably used to sanction the deaths of all accused. It also led to the Malleus Maleficarum, the Witch's Hammer, a non-canonical work sanctioned by the church as a means of finding, torturing and burning all those accused of witchcraft. A Biblical sentiment which led directly to hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths. Most of the victims would have been innocent.

This is one example. When I have more time (I'm at work) I'll look for more.

You want to say that each and every Muslim is violent? Fine. I can make the same assertion about each and every Christian. But I won't be right, and neither, Vox, will you.

Kindly point out where and when did I say every Muslim is violent? I was not referring to ALL Muslims, I was referring to the British islamist group whose intention was to commit mass murder in a massive scale, so please get your fact right.

2nd, those Christians who committed violent act did so not in accordance to the teaching of Christ. If you can find anything in His teaching advocating violence please show me.

Again I was only referring to the British Islamist group. And Constantine certainly was not the founder of Christianity. Please do not twist my word.

I assume nothing. However you can certainly assume a point and than prove it by providing evidence, what's wrong with that? It is a legitimate question based on the article in the link provided, unless of course you have not bothered to read the whole article.

As LadyRaven said, your tone and the way you phrased the post made no reference to specific Islamist terrorists; you spoke generically, and the tone of the article reflects that specific slant, even if it does make mention of specifics. Next time, if you really want to discuss specifics, I suggest you open less broadly and without a general attack on 'all good Muslims.'

Edited August 16, 2006 by secondeve

[pointer]

Exodus: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

For your own sake, perhaps you would have the courtesy to

a) give references, as requested

b) refrain from making biased comment which may be completely irrelevant fabrication and circular argument

c) refrain from combining replies to several posters.

d) refrain from removing important context.

I am sure that you will be most eager to preserve the reputation of atheists and sceptics, and avoid any suggestion of hypocrisy. Perhaps, if you have any other verses that you may suppose support your allegation, you will do so in a manner that is not counter-productive. I'm sure that both 'sides' will thank you for that.

Ex 22:18 NIV 'Do not allow a sorceress to live.'

Now what are the circumstances of this command? To whom was it given, and for what purpose?

Ex 20:22 NIV 'Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this:'

So we see that the command is not given to Christians as such, but to the Israelites. Now it is very well known that Christians do not necessarily apply to themselves commands given to the Israelites, whose function as a political entity was to demonstrate the value of the laws of Yahweh to the other tribes and nations that surrounded ancient Israel. They do not necessarily apply to anyone today, and so one must be on one's guard against atheists and sceptics who maliciously and completely inappropriately adopt precepts given to Israelites in order to discredit Christianity.

[secondeve]

Exodus: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

For your own sake, perhaps you would have the courtesy to

a) give references, as requested

b) refrain from making biased comment which may be completely irrelevant fabrication and circular argument

c) refrain from combining replies to several posters.

d) refrain from removing important context.

As I said, if you'd looked at my whole post, I'm at work at the moment, doing this in fleeting bits of spare time. When I have a moment, I will provide more examples.

What did I say that was biased, fabricated or circular? You give no examples.

You're having a go at me for "combining replies to several posters?" That's absurd. Most people on Worthy, regardless of intent or belief, do the same. Now you're just looking for excuses to be antagonistic.

I am sure that you will be most eager to preserve the reputation of atheists and sceptics, and avoid any suggestion of hypocrisy. Perhaps, if you have any other verses that you may suppose support your allegation, you will do so in a manner that is not counter-productive. I'm sure that both 'sides' will thank you for that.

How was I counter-productive? You're not making yourself clear at all. I was asked a question and endeavoured to give one example as an answer, aplogising for time restraints which - for the moment - prohibited further detail. That hardly seems to merit the discourtesy you're directing towards me.

Ex 22:18 NIV 'Do not allow a sorceress to live.'

Now what are the circumstances of this command? To whom was it given, and for what purpose?

Ex 20:22 NIV 'Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this:'

So we see that the command is not given to Christians as such, but to the Israelites. Now it is very well known that Christians do not necessarily apply to themselves commands given to the Israelites, whose function as a political entity was to demonstrate the value of the laws of Yahweh to the other tribes and nations that surrounded ancient Israel. They do not necessarily apply to anyone today, and so one must be on one's guard against atheists and sceptics who maliciously and completely inappropriately adopt precepts given to Israelites in order to discredit Christianity.

You seem to have misunderstood my purpose in citing the verse. I am not saying that the "correct" interpretation of Christianity is one in which this verse is or is not applicable in modern times, or to anyone bar the Israelites. I am saying that some Christians, both presently in the past, have embraced this interpretation. There is a distinct difference. Now. You back up your stance on the position well, but let me explain my point. Your explanation is not included in the Bible as a side-note. It is a human theory constructed around what the Bible does say, and what might be presumed from the context. This is not definitive. Christians who think that this command applies to them have embraced a different interpretation; and the point I am making, Pointer, is that, regardless of what you think of this interpretation, the text does not prohibit it being made. Because of this, people have died. I made this point as a direct response to being asked to support my claim that the Bible left interpretation in certain places or verses for violent actions, and cited the Exodus ban on witches. I do not see how this position is unreasonable - or, for that matter, untrue.

[pointer]

Ex 22:18 NIV 'Do not allow a sorceress to live.'

Now what are the circumstances of this command? To whom was it given, and for what purpose?

Ex 20:22 NIV 'Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this:'

So we see that the command is not given to Christians as such, but to the Israelites. Now it is very well known that Christians do not necessarily apply to themselves commands given to the Israelites, whose function as a political entity was to demonstrate the value of the laws of Yahweh to the other tribes and nations that surrounded ancient Israel. They do not necessarily apply to anyone today, and so one must be on one's guard against atheists and sceptics who maliciously and completely inappropriately adopt precepts given to Israelites in order to discredit Christianity.

I am not saying that the "correct" interpretation of Christianity is one in which this verse is or is not applicable in modern times, or to anyone bar the Israelites. I am saying that some Christians, both presently in the past, have embraced this interpretation.

Would you very much mind keeping to the subject? It was you, not some half-witted Americans or Roman Catholics, who claimed that 'the Qu'ran and the Bible both leave ample space in the reading for belligerent, first-strike, aggressive defence of the faith'.

Now prove it!!!! Do you know enough about the Bible to do that, or were you just making trouble? It's never been proven before, but you never know, maybe there is something new under the sun.

.

[georgesbluegirl]

what do you think was used to justify the crusades?

[pointer]

what do you think was used to justify the crusades?

The authority of a political institution.

[Scarletprayers]

It was you, not some half-witted Americans or Roman Catholics, who claimed that 'the Qu'ran and the Bible both leave ample space in the reading for belligerent, first-strike, aggressive defence of the faith'.

Well, I'll give you credit for being and equal opportunity insulter.