Is Islam actually peaceful?

[The Lord]

In the 17th century, the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants wiped out half to 2/3 the population of central Europe. Partly as a result of this carnage, Europe experienced the Enlightenment (also owing to the Scientific Revolution). As a result, toleration became a primary value. Maybe Islam needs an Enlightenment?? I'm thinking primarily of the Sunni-Shi'ite antagonism.

Islam did not have a dark age in order to need an "enlightenment." And the "Enlightenment" came to Europe and Christendom from Islam, as did the scientific method which launched the scientific revolution.

Actually, and this is usually disregarded, one can say that the Islamic civilization flourished because of Islam, while European civilization flourished despite of Christianity. The specific experience with religious backwardness, superstition, prosecution, witch hunts, religious wars, and the corruption of the Church is strictly Christian and European. Muslims did not experience the same drawbacks of religion. Muslims do not have an issue with the separation of church and state because they do not have a church and they never had a history of conflict with religious authorities. Rather, they usually had a problem with the state itself. Today, they have major problems with their colonially imposed, corrupt and dysfunctional states, and the foreign powers that impose and/or support the tyrannical rulers, hence the political nature of their mobilization. I presume from the Muslims point of view, the church was much more reliable than the state.

 

[aburaees]

(duplicate)

 

[aburaees]

Islam did not have a dark age in order to need an "enlightenment." And the "Enlightenment" came to Europe and Christendom from Islam, as did the scientific method which launched the scientific revolution.

It's ironic that Europe "received" enlightenment from Islam, when it was Islam that arguably helped plunge Europe into the dark ages in the first place by weakening the Roman Empire and taking over its territories.

Rome's centres of excellence were "taken" by Islam e.g. Alexandria, so WE borrowed the enlightenment that they already had.

The specific experience with religious backwardness, superstition, prosecution... religious wars...

And they would say the same about us and our current situation. The biggest players in the Muslim world today weren't imposed on us by them, and colonialism is as much a part of Muslim history as it is Christian history.

Historically, Christians and Muslims have been practically the same... both part of the same wheel... and the wheel is turning. The difference is that theirs wasn't sanctioned by Jesus (or Paul), but ours on the other hand was sanctioned by our own founders.

Those are my thoughts...
.

 

[Postmaster]

aburaees as a Greek I'm going to point out the Crusaders looted Constantinople and weakened the defence making it vulnerable to Ottoman (Muslim invaders). And from what I can see Crusaders VS Crescents, crusaders were more barbaric! If we dispute the whole west and east conflict I think the very first recording we have is of the Greeks invading the Trojans so west make the first move (which wasn’t over Helen the slut but probably because Troy was such an amazing trade location). Then Persians on Greeks, then Greeks on Persians, then Turks on Greeks. etc etc etc. From an archaeological point of view the Mycenaean’s North European nomads came in and invaded the peaceful south European Minoans who were full of culture and had links with the Egyptians and Middle East.

 

[Quahom1]

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 5:07 p.m. ET Sept 18, 2006
function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((''.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('632942104212600000');

CAIRO, Egypt - "Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and Iran’s supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff’s remarks on Islam.
Protests broke out in South Asia and Indonesia, with angry Muslims saying Benedict’s statement of regret a day earlier did not go far enough. In southern Iraq, demonstrators carrying black flags burned an effigy of the pope.
Islamic leaders around the world issued more condemnations of the pope’s comments, but some moderates in the Middle East appeared to be trying to put a damper on the outrage, fearing it could spiral into attacks on Christians in the region...

...Statement from al-Qaida
Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies issued a statement addressing the pope as “a cross-worshipper” and warning, “You and the West are doomed, as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere.
“You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God’s rule is established governing all people and nations,” said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq...

...Another Iraqi extremist group, Ansar al-Sunna, challenged “sleeping Muslims” to prove their manhood by doing something other than “issuing statements or holding demonstrations.”
“If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house,” the group said in a Web statement, referring to the pope, “then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome.”
In Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the comments to call for protests against the United States. He argued that while the pope may have been deceived into making his remarks, the words give the West an “excuse for suppressing Muslims” by depicting them as terrorists.
“Those who benefit from the pope’s comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests,” he said, referring to the United States."

 

[Postmaster]

hmmmmm

 

[juantoo3]

Re: rules

Regards, the Lard.

Are you kidding us or yourself? Where do you get your information from? Tell us, where do you find in Islam that Muslims should kill people of the book for just being people of the book? If your claim is true, then how do you explain that after 1500 years of Muslim dominance and rule over vast areas of the world there are still sizable communities of Christians and Jews in the MENA counties and Europe, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Central Asia, and others of many faiths in Africa and Asia? How do you explain that when Muslims were ruling Spain, Sicily, Malta, southern Italy, and Eastern Europe the populations of these areas remained largely on their Christian faith. They were not killed for being Christians. Even people who were not traditionally considered people of the book, in India for instance, were not killed for not being Muslim.

Apparently, that was then, this is now. How do you explain Darfur? How do you explain Salmon Rushdie? How do you explain people being stirred to riot and murder over some senseless cartoons? How do you explain people being threatened with execution for no more crime than conversion to another faith? No, you completely missed the point, and what's more, I am inclined to think you missed it on purpose by quoting selectively and out of context.

 

[cyberpi]

I've seen two dogs in America that I don't like. One barks and might even pre-emptively bite at everyone it thinks might threaten the hands that feed it. You simply can't be a stranger around that dog. The other dog marks out territory by going bush to bush and peeing on it. This way it can enforce the LAW in its territory and if a stranger walks through and pees then they are fair game, but the dog will not leave its urine soaked comfort zone to go mingle with their neighbors and share values. One dog is pro-war and the other dog is an apathetic peace-protestor. I think they are the same dog really, and everyone has these dogs inside them. So who let their dogs out?

Who instead leashes up their dogs and places Faith in others by praying in the house of a different religion that is not from their comfort zone? Have any Muslims been baptized or shared communion in a church? Have any Jews or Christians prostrated in prayer in a Mosque? Or is it considered unfashionably evil to place Faith in people who recieved a different upbringing and see things differently? I know there are a few who like to mingle, but most people stick to and defend their comfort zones.

So who let their dogs out? Its actually kind of depressing being an American since so many people would prefer to spend their time supporting the cheap slave labor policies of communist China from the comfort zone of their local Walmart. There's not a whole lot Americans do, it seems, because they are free. It has been fashionable to leave foreign relations to the hands of the government and it has become fashionable for governments to ignore the people. It has become fashionable to pee in a corner and call it home... enjoy the comfort zone. Say, who let their dogs out?

I don't mean to rag on America... I fly a flag... I'm patriotic. I rag for the dogs everywhere, I just know the ones that are at home. Who let them out?

 

[cavalier]

I've seen two dogs in America that I don't like. One barks and might even pre-emptively bite at everyone it thinks might threaten the hands that feed it. You simply can't be a stranger around that dog. The other dog marks out territory by going bush to bush and peeing on it. This way it can enforce the LAW in its territory and if a stranger walks through and pees then they are fair game, but the dog will not leave its urine soaked comfort zone to go mingle with their neighbors and share values. One dog is pro-war and the other dog is an apathetic peace-protestor. I think they are the same dog really, and everyone has these dogs inside them. So who let their dogs out?

Who instead leashes up their dogs and places Faith in others by praying in the house of a different religion that is not from their comfort zone? Have any Muslims been baptized or shared communion in a church? Have any Jews or Christians prostrated in prayer in a Mosque? Or is it considered unfashionably evil to place Faith in people who recieved a different upbringing and see things differently? I know there are a few who like to mingle, but most people stick to and defend their comfort zones.

So who let their dogs out? Its actually kind of depressing being an American since so many people would prefer to spend their time supporting the cheap slave labor policies of communist China from the comfort zone of their local Walmart. There's not a whole lot Americans do, it seems, because they are free. It has been fashionable to leave foreign relations to the hands of the government and it has become fashionable for governments to ignore the people. It has become fashionable to pee in a corner and call it home... enjoy the comfort zone. Say, who let their dogs out?

I don't mean to rag on America... I fly a flag... I'm patriotic. I rag for the dogs everywhere, I just know the ones that are at home. Who let them out?

I appreciate what you're saying but think that what you've written in the paragraph now highlighted is a little short sighted. There are plenty of people who will happily be friends with, and put faith in people of a different religion, but would not worship in their holy place because they would see this as an offence against their own God.
You and I might believe in the one God, many paths idea, but we cannot expect that everyone will. Neither should we consider them inferior if they do not.

 

[Quahom1]

I've seen two dogs in America that I don't like. One barks and might even pre-emptively bite at everyone it thinks might threaten the hands that feed it. You simply can't be a stranger around that dog. The other dog marks out territory by going bush to bush and peeing on it. This way it can enforce the LAW in its territory and if a stranger walks through and pees then they are fair game, but the dog will not leave its urine soaked comfort zone to go mingle with their neighbors and share values. One dog is pro-war and the other dog is an apathetic peace-protestor. I think they are the same dog really, and everyone has these dogs inside them. So who let their dogs out?

Who instead leashes up their dogs and places Faith in others by praying in the house of a different religion that is not from their comfort zone? Have any Muslims been baptized or shared communion in a church? Have any Jews or Christians prostrated in prayer in a Mosque? Or is it considered unfashionably evil to place Faith in people who recieved a different upbringing and see things differently? I know there are a few who like to mingle, but most people stick to and defend their comfort zones.

So who let their dogs out? Its actually kind of depressing being an American since so many people would prefer to spend their time supporting the cheap slave labor policies of communist China from the comfort zone of their local Walmart. There's not a whole lot Americans do, it seems, because they are free. It has been fashionable to leave foreign relations to the hands of the government and it has become fashionable for governments to ignore the people. It has become fashionable to pee in a corner and call it home... enjoy the comfort zone. Say, who let their dogs out?

I don't mean to rag on America... I fly a flag... I'm patriotic. I rag for the dogs everywhere, I just know the ones that are at home. Who let them out?

lol, the only "dogs" I see in America are ones that pet owners cherish (for the most part). The rest are HUMAN BEINGS, that you apparently have "downgraded".

Patriotic is not what is needed. Rational thought at the fact that you and yours could be subject to real damage, just like the rest of us, regardless of this idle tossing of philisophical ideas is what should be considered.

We are at war. Plain and simple. The enemy identify themselves as whatever, but a grenade knows no boundaries. They have ordered our deaths (collectively), regardless of who they are. When an enemy wishes your death, best take heed of that wish, and take cover, then go find the enemy and neutralise it, before it neutralises you.

That, my friend is the law of the jungle. And that is what this is becoming, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news.

Gonna kill the Pope? for a factual issue that was written over 800 years ago? What is that, a blow to Christianity or the "free decidant world" or something? How peaceful, is that?

 

[cavalier]

We are at war. Plain and simple. The enemy identify themselves as whatever, but a grenade knows no boundaries. They have ordered our deaths (collectively), regardless of who they are. When an enemy wishes your death, best take heed of that wish, and take cover, then go find the enemy and neutralise it, before it neutralises you.

Ok, but who exactly is the enemy? We know who some of them are, but there are many who we are not sure about.
Perhaps in America, certainly in Britain, many Muslims are feeling themselves to be more and more marginalised from society. The longer this process continues, and the more drastic it is, the more enemies we will have to go out and neutralise.
I think cyberpi's intention was that we should welcome different groups instead of keeping them outside our territory. Should we do this, the world will be a more peaceful place to live in.

It's like that Robert Frost poem, Mending Wall http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/frost-mending.html

 

[Quahom1]

Ok, but who exactly is the enemy? We know who some of them are, but there are many who we are not sure about.
Perhaps in America, certainly in Britain, many Muslims are feeling themselves to be more and more marginalised from society. The longer this process continues, and the more drastic it is, the more enemies we will have to go out and neutralise.
I think cyberpi's intention was that we should welcome different groups instead of keeping them outside our territory. Should we do this, the world will be a more peaceful place to live in.

It's like that Robert Frost poem, Mending Wall http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/frost-mending.html

There are over 500,000 Muslim Arab/Americans in the United States Cav. That means they took an "oath" to be Americans, thus be trusted by their fellow Americans. It would be a serious mistake, for those same "Americans" to suddenly change their minds...

No country can afford that. This is a teetering balance here, but sooner or later, aliegences will have to be made. Case in point: My family is from Ireland (both sides), what am I? American. Religion has nothing to do with it. That is why my ancestors came here.

The Arab Americans (who are Muslim), will have to decide that for themselves. Not to mention the remaining "Muslims" that are not of Arab decent...

I was astounded by what I heard today about the mandate of Islam. The Qu'ran states all Jews and Christians are to be killed, converted, or subjugated? But, we were told, only 15 to 20 percent of Muslims were willing to go into other countries to carry out such a "mandate". Well, let's see, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and 15 - 20 percent would put that at...200,000,000 people, willing to go out into this world and kill all Christians and Jews, subjugate or convert them...

Suddenly 15-20 percent, isn't so small a number...do you think?

Reality, suddenly hit home, like a pitcher beaning the batter...the game's rules are forfeit...

If the Pope gets "hit", as promised by the Arab/Muslim extremists (that no "old country" nation has the nuts to stop)...what do you think, will happen next?

I don't think this is an exercise in philosophy for much longer...do you?

 

[Quahom1]

Taij, I know what you are thinking. But I opine that the US has everything to lose, if we do not stick to our guns, so to speak. I see an ultimatum, coming down the pike...and no one will be able to deflect it...

For all the philisophical rhetoric, do you really see another way? Burning churches and killing nuns because of a "rage" that can't be controlled? Most would call that a "rabid" response...

 

[cavalier]

There are over 500,000 Muslim Arab/Americans in the United States Cav. That means they took an "oath" to be Americans, thus be trusted by their fellow Americans. It would be a serious mistake, for those same "Americans" to suddenly change their minds...

No country can afford that. This is a teetering balance here, but sooner or later, aliegences will have to be made. Case in point: My family is from Ireland (both sides), what am I? American. Religion has nothing to do with it. That is why my ancestors came here.

The Arab Americans (who are Muslim), will have to decide that for themselves. Not to mention the remaining "Muslims" that are not of Arab decent...

I was astounded by what I heard today about the mandate of Islam. The Qu'ran states all Jews and Christians are to be killed, converted, or subjugated? But, we were told, only 15 to 20 percent of Muslims were willing to go into other countries to carry out such a "mandate". Well, let's see, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and 15 - 20 percent would put that at...200,000,000 people, willing to go out into this world and kill all Christians and Jews, subjugate or convert them...

Suddenly 15-20 percent, isn't so small a number...do you think?

Reality, suddenly hit home, like a pitcher beaning the batter...the game's rules are forfeit...

If the Pope gets "hit", as promised by the Arab/Muslim extremists (that no "old country" nation has the nuts to stop)...what do you think, will happen next?

I don't think this is an exercise in philosophy for much longer...do you?

I have never thought this is an exercise in philosophy. This is all about practicality.

Islamic Fundamentalism is on the rise, why?

15-20% of all Muslims does not sound like a small number, now why don't you do the math and work out how many people 20-25% is. That's what we're moving towards. Western societies are marginalising Muslims, we're pissing off good people and playing right into the hands of the extremists. Support for extremism has never been so high, why is that Q?

You wrote that Muslim Arab Americans took an oath to be Americans and thus be trusted by their fellow Americans. The thing is that average Muslims in Britain and America are not trusted. Virtually all of these people have done absolutely nothing wrong and yet they are under suspicion.
What are we doing to win these these hearts and minds?

George Bush is losing his war on terror. 5 years after 911 there is more fear, distrust, hatred, and suspicion. The methods we are using do not work and fundamentalism is going from strength to strength.

You're a military man Q, so maybe you can answer me this question. When we hear military people talking about winning the hearts and minds of the regular civilians, is this just something to think about, or something to put into action?

 

[Postmaster]

Japanese used planes as suicide weapons during World War 2, was that religious?

 

[The Lord]

... When we hear military people talking about winning the hearts and minds of the regular civilians, is this just something to think about, or something to put into action?

We win them as war trophies. You probably could buy some framed ones on eBay.

Really, all Imperialist powers claimed the same "civilizing" and selfless mission. It just looks better in a history book than in daily politics. And of course, your feelings about it depend on where you fall relative this mission, whether you benefit or you lose. People are incapable of recognizing their own wrong doings.

 

[The Lord]

Japanese used planes as suicide weapons during World War 2, was that religious?

The Japanese were not Muslim, and thus there is no reason to bash them. We, the free and democratic peoples of the West, only hate Muslims because we are told to hate them because they hate us because we hate them.

 

[The Lord]

It's ironic that Europe "received" enlightenment from Islam, when it was Islam that arguably helped plunge Europe into the dark ages in the first place by weakening the Roman Empire and taking over its territories.

Rome's centres of excellence were "taken" by Islam e.g. Alexandria, so WE borrowed the enlightenment that they already had. ...

Islam did not plunge Europe into the dark ages. Europe became dark when the Roman Empire split into two parts, East and West. The Eastern Empire, which is not European but Asian and North African, lasted till the 15th century, which is 8 centuries after the rise of Islam, and it fell largely thanks to the Crusades either directly by attacking the empire for wealth or by raising the level of enmity between Byzantium and Islam. The Western Roman Empire, the one that inherited Europe, was destroyed by the “native” barbarian invasions in the 5th century, which is about 2 centuries before the rise of Islam.

 

[juantoo3]

The Japanese were not Muslim, and thus there is no reason to bash them. We, the free and democratic peoples of the West, only hate Muslims because we are told to hate them because they hate us because we hate them.

Ah, your methods and motive are beginning to show, you might want to check your slip.

Despite the uproar my comments seem to have raised, I do not hate Muslims, and I live in the West. Therefore, your theory falls on its face.

No, what I see is hypersensitive overreaction from people who do not have anything constructive to say, and / or have an agenda of hatred of their own they wish to promote at every available opportunity. Even if that opportunity must be invented or contrived, even if that opportunity is disguised as an overblown pity party. For G-d's sake!, murder for a stupid cartoon???

Actually, I think Postmaster hit on a very valid point, dispite the dismissal, in that kamikaze was indeed a religious act, carried out in war, by a religion that promotes itself as peaceful.

While that is aside from the OP of this thread, it is a *very* close parallel, that anybody with a rational and reasoning mind could clearly see.

 

[Quahom1]

Ah, your methods and motive are beginning to show, you might want to check your slip.

Despite the uproar my comments seem to have raised, I do not hate Muslims, and I live in the West. Therefore, your theory falls on its face.

No, what I see is hypersensitive overreaction from people who do not have anything constructive to say, and / or have an agenda of hatred of their own they wish to promote at every available opportunity. Even if that opportunity must be invented or contrived, even if that opportunity is disguised as an overblown pity party. For G-d's sake!, murder for a stupid cartoon???

Actually, I think Postmaster hit on a very valid point, dispite the dismissal, in that kamikaze was indeed a religious act, carried out in war, by a religion that promotes itself as peaceful.

While that is aside from the OP of this thread, it is a *very* close parallel, that anybody with a rational and reasoning mind could clearly see.

I believe the term is "bigotry" of the highest order, hidden under an odd sense of self righteousness, that doesn't exist. Instead of the Aryan nation, it is now the "Islamic Nation". However, what does exist is absolute unequivicable evidence of the actions of destruction over the past 40 years, in the name of Islam. True, it is done by a few, while the majority remain silent, out of fear, and the wish to not be involved... while the radicals blame it all on the Imperialist west...man, does that sound like a page taken right out of the history books, or what?

Strange, the "fasciasts" of Germany had the exact same type of fear control over the general populace in the 1930s and 40s. History repeats itself while the world tries to placate those incapable of being placated...because it does not agree with their ultimate agenda.