Islam a Religion of Peace?

[secondeve]

Jihad Is a Pillar to many groups of Islamic followers. Some believe in 5, some, 6, and some 7 pillars.

In all major factions of Islam, whether they consider it a pillar or not, death in Jihad guarantees life eternal in the presence of Allah.

PLEASE pay attention. What you are being told is this: all forms of "Islam" which have jihad as a pillar are considered FALSE by the wider Islamic community. What you are saying is the equivalent of my telling you that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are Christian groups, despite the fact that certain of their beliefs are believed to contradict or undermine key Christian teachings.

[vox]

What you're referring to was the tax on the dhimmis (non-Muslims) in lieu of military service in medieval times, in multicultural societies like Spain and Baghdad. Only Muslims could fight in the armies of the state, so because they could not provide this service, non-Muslims paid a levy instead. This is hardly what you're making it out to be, and I'm pretty certain it is no longer imposed, nor has it been for several hundred years.

Well you are quite wrong. You are referring to the jiza which is the MANDATORY TAX paid by non Muslims one they are under Muslims occupation or once they are subdued by their Islamic masters. So please don't twist the meaning of jiza.

See here what the Islamic Presidency says regarding the jiza before you start twisting the real purpose of imposing it to non Muslims : http://www.java-man.com/Pages/MiscIslamic/FatwaOnUnion.html

Where it is stated:

[georgesbluegirl]

Jihad is an IDEA, not a pillar...unfortunately I have to run (packing for college!) so I don't have time to make a more comprehensive post, but I did want to mention something else.

Remember that Europe is highly charged with racial and ethnic tension - Muslims there have always had a much harder time acclimatizing (see: France and head scarves, discrimination against Algerians, les banlieues). In general, the population of Europe is much more secular than in the United States - one reason that Muslims, for most of whom religion and culture are very much intertwined, have generally had an easier time assimilating into U.S. culture. Followers of Islam or those historically Muslim are very much marginalized into their own seperate groups for the most part in countries such as Denmark (where the cartoons were printed). So the turmoil caused by the printing of the Muhammad cartoons raised a considerable rabble - and the editors should have seen it coming (and probably did). While freedom of speech certainly protects the Jyllands-Posten's right to print them, there should have been more consideration given to how the cartoons would make citizens who were followers of Islam feel, especially given the long history of discrimination against their people. Basically, you can't just make a blanket statement to blame Muslims for reacting the way they did (although I am of course not condoning any of the violent acts that occurred...however, there were many peaceful and appropriate protests that took place).

[vox]

Jihad is an IDEA, not a pillar...unfortunately I have to run (packing for college!) so I don't have time to make a more comprehensive post, but I did want to mention something else.

Remember that Europe is highly charged with racial and ethnic tension - Muslims there have always had a much harder time acclimatizing (see: France and head scarves, discrimination against Algerians, les banlieues). In general, the population of Europe is much more secular than in the United States - one reason that Muslims, for most of whom religion and culture are very much intertwined, have generally had an easier time assimilating into U.S. culture. Followers of Islam or those historically Muslim are very much marginalized into their own seperate groups for the most part in countries such as Denmark (where the cartoons were printed). So the turmoil caused by the printing of the Muhammad cartoons raised a considerable rabble - and the editors should have seen it coming (and probably did). While freedom of speech certainly protects the Jyllands-Posten's right to print them, there should have been more consideration given to how the cartoons would make citizens who were followers of Islam feel, especially given the long history of discrimination against their people. Basically, you can't just make a blanket statement to blame Muslims for reacting the way they did (although I am of course not condoning any of the violent acts that occurred...however, there were many peaceful and appropriate protests that took place).

But you just reinforce what I have been saying all along. Why should one law for the Muslims and one law for non Muslims? Why should they react the way they do just because they are marginalized?

Do you think Western culture are not intertwined with her religion? The culture of Europe is the culture of Christianity, this is a fact. Even though Europe and the West have become much more secular it doesn't negate the fact that their cultural heritage is one of Christianity.

Yet you do not see Christians behave the way Muslims do when Christ is caricatured in Islamic countries and it is being done regularly.

Here is the view of one Muslim: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/theau...n-05-08-22.html

[georgesbluegirl]

It's not about law - I am certainly not saying that the right of free speech should have been or should be abridged. That's why the Muslims had the right to retaliate with offensive Jewish cartoons (however offensive). I'm merely saying that part of the blame lies with the newspaper that printed the cartoons, deciding to EXERCISE its right to free speech. As we all know, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

It's about the fact that the society in Europe as a whole marginalizes Muslims more than they partition themselves. The example of the US shows that Muslims in the West CAN adapt to society, own businesses and live within a larger, more diverse community. It's never been as easy in Europe...there are too many centuries of bad blood and violence dating from the crusades. And my own observation shows that in general in the West (as you pointed out), historically Judeo-Christian culture dominates over others, so there's no need for Christians to react incredibly violently, as they are in the majority. The minority Muslims, already feeling malcontent, react more strongly. This is not to say that I think the acts of violence were anything but awful. We should, however, recognize the peaceful outcry of the majority of Muslims in the West.

As for Europe and religion, it's merely a fact that Europeans are less religious than Americans...very few go to church, despite the long history of Christianity etc. there. I once heard England described as "fallen into a sea of wishy-washy agnosticism," which seems an apt description of much of the European populace. Maybe they believe in God, but religion and faith are less important than they are here.

There was a very good article in The Economist (basically my favorite news publication) about why Muslims and Arabs have a harder time adjusting to living in Europe, and why it is much easier in America. Most of the main points are mentioned above.

[pointer]

As for Europe and religion, it's merely a fact that Europeans are less religious than Americans.

But they may be as Christian, or more so.

The example of the US shows that Muslims in the West CAN adapt to society, own businesses and live within a larger, more diverse community.

I suggest that Europe has a much greater proportion of Muslims than the US, and, on the whole, has integrated them well.

It's never been as easy in Europe...there are too many centuries of bad blood and violence dating from the crusades.

With respect, that is an absurd comment. The average European has no consciousness of the Crusades whatever, and has not done for centuries before immigration from Asia began in modern times. (Those who do are likely to be Protestants or atheists who are much more likely to blame Catholicism rather than Islam.) When that immigration occurred, religion hardly mattered. It was social culture that made for racialism. It is current religious, Islamic activity that is now by far the greatest matter of public concern in Europe- along with global warming.

[georgesbluegirl]

I was merely dating the violence FROM the crusades, not implying that that specific incident is what colors modern perception of Islam.

[apothanein kerdos]

Georges....if you study the middle east you'll quickly discover that over three hundred million, close to half of all Muslims worldwide, believe in Jihad as the 6th pillar of Islam. Most are Shia believers, but some Sunnis are beginning to adopt the belief as well.

The simple truth is that Islam is a religion of violence justified by the Qu'ran...and condemned by the Qu'ran. Whereas when Christians read the OT, the passages concerning killing are impossible to apply to a modern day situation, in Islam commands are given to all Muslims to kill the infidels. In fact, it is generally the more liberal or moderate Muslims that mistraslate these passages.

You can't sit there and tell me it is a religion of peace when it is involved in or the cause of over 80% of the major world conflicts occuring today and is relied upon by the Qu'ran. The difference between this and Christian violence is they point to the Qu'ran and read their justification.....Christians doing violence in "the name of the Lord" often try to hide the Bible from their followers for fear they will become peaceful.

[billie]

The simple truth is that Islam is a religion of violence justified by the Qu'ran...and condemned by the Qu'ran. Whereas when Christians read the OT, the passages concerning killing are impossible to apply to a modern day situation, in Islam commands are given to all Muslims to kill the infidels.

Dood, didn't you catch this part? Maybe you should read the Qu'ran and see it for yourself?

[apothanein kerdos]

The simple truth is that Islam is a religion of violence justified by the Qu'ran...and condemned by the Qu'ran. Whereas when Christians read the OT, the passages concerning killing are impossible to apply to a modern day situation, in Islam commands are given to all Muslims to kill the infidels.

Dood, didn't you catch this part? Maybe you should read the Qu'ran and see it for yourself?

That's what I was going to point to as a response.

The Qu'ran seemingly contradicts itself in this issue. Those that are extremist teach that the passages which call for peace do so under Muslim law; so long as the people subject themselves to Muslim law, they are to be at peace with them. The moderate and liberal Muslims preach the passages on violence appeal to spiritual violence, thus you declare "jihad" (self-war) on the "infidel" (your own sin).

Both go to great lengths to do this, but it simply is a contradiction. I've read through the Qu'ran and it's hard to see how there is justification for either side...granted I had to do this in English so maybe there is something, some article of the language, in Arabic that gives a broder interpretation.

Regardless, as I pointed out, when Christians engage in violence for the purpose of "furthering Christianity" the Bible is often hidden from the masses. If you look to the Crusades, the witch hunts, the inquisition...the Bible was "used" but was never allowed to be read by the masses, or was at least ignored. The reason is that the Bible does more to condemn violence for the Christian than it does to support it. Though we have a right to defend ourselves, we don't have a right to spread Christianity via violent methods.