is islam a religion of peace?

[BlaznFattyz]

perhaps a better question is "is violence inherant in islam?"

 

[shadowman]

or is violence inherent in god. remember

i come with a sword - jesus

dont forget the old testament. you remember it whenever it suits your argument, label it "twisting of scripture" whenever it doesnt

 

[BlaznFattyz]

aside from that not making any sense, this discussion is about islam.

 

[Postmaster]

Did you get that? Chesterton, as a Christian, had the understanding that the world does not have a hunger problem or pollution problem or money problem or war problem or disease problem, but instead a people problem. People are whats wrong with the world. I am the problem, you are, and on and on. The indwelling sin in us makes us the problem Read romands 3 and Jesus' words..."There is NONE Good, no not one!" The most peaceful people on this planet are those fortunate sinners who have come to recornize the evil in them and have come to Christ whereby He may change them into His own image (like mr. Smith in the matrix movies).

The problem seems to be we are fighting pointlessly over ideology and theology. As far as I know all humans are going to function the same way regardless. This has been seen time and time again throughout history, no masses of people within a certain race or religion have been seen to be morally superior. Sooner everyone gets this into there minds, the better.

 

[Abdullah]

perhaps a better question is "is violence inherant in islam?"

Hi Blazenfattyz,

Violence is not inherent in Islam, but self-defence is, with the strictest and most humane guidelines ever.

Violence [that which violates] has nothing to do with Islam.

Peace.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Hi Blazenfattyz,

Violence is not inherent in Islam, but self-defence is, with the strictest and most humane guidelines ever.

Violence [that which violates] has nothing to do with Islam.

Peace.

i must admit it is hard to say violence is not part of islam when it is going on at the same time we are posting these threads. perhaps there are socio-cultural factors involved in addition to or besides islam, such as dictatorships, education, discrimination, peer pressure, misinterpreted scriptures, etc.
what is the definition of islamic self defense where one acts as a martyr? and are those people rewarded for it?

 

[Zaakir]

firstly,small mindedness isnt something you can possess this day in age.islam is nothing to do with violence.a martyr in islam can be of many reasons.such as someone dying with an illness, in some circumstances can be classed as a martyr.in christianity there are many martyrs taht were killed fighting for your religion and for their cause,this is the same in islam.some muslims are violent shall we say,but i dont think its becasue they are muslim,its the way they are brought up,there has only actaully been 2 attacks right?by muslims.nothing is mentioned of their race.the country they are from may have many issues with places like america,hence 911.how many white muslims have you seen involved,how many somalis,how many malaysians,how many africans.the people were from some countries where the government isnt running properly,thus there is some confusion in the countrys and leads to such recent events

 

[17th Angel]

Every, every... Religion/way of life can be of peace..... Just sometimes there are a few bad apples.

 

[Snoopy]

I think there can be found reasons / excuses for violence in many things if one looks through the right eyes; the Koran, the Bible, zen, the lyrics of heavy metal albums…

Perhaps the distinction needs to be made between an Islamist, prepared to use violence for political ends and associated with Islam, and a Muslim who presumably denounces random violence against civilians, whatever their race or religion. I realise it is a complex issue, but maybe an appropriate analogy might be with the IRA. Its membership may have all been Catholics but that didn’t mean that this made people question if Roman Catholicism was (or was not) a “religion of peace.”

s.

 

[Muslimwoman]

perhaps a better question is "is violence inherant in islam?"

Hi Blazn

This is a subject dear to my heart and one I try to read as much as I can about. For me the answer is a resounding No, as with many things it is about context and interpretation. I bookmarked a piece on Jihad which I found really interesting, it is informative and not an apologists opinion, a bit long but a good read. If anyone is interested it is here:

IslamOnline - Contemporary Section

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Children are more innocent but it says some people you can't help... some are even guided away by Allah (swt).

Hi Cyberpi

All children that die will go to heaven and will not be judged on the Day of Judgement, as they are innocent. So I think we can therefore assume that everyone is born Good and it is later in life when we begin to stray.

Salaam

 

[zaim187]

Out of curiosity, how many Muslims would agree with the following?:

1) There is nothing that a person could ever say, write, or draw about their personal opinions which would ever justify their death or even calling for their death.

2) There is no atrocity, oppression, offense, religious cause, political cause, or even military tactic that could ever justify the intentional selection of unarmed innocent civilians and children as the primary target for violence.

This is not a rhetorical question, asked in order to make some unstated point. Rather, it is something I would genuinely be interested to know.

Many thanks.
Sincerely,

In response to Question 1)

In an Islamic state a person who intentionally vilifies and demonizes people of any religion creed or origin because of their religion creed or origin in an inciteful manner and threatness the social cohesion of that state I believe should be punished. In an Islamic state the rights of the minority should be very much respected so If a Muslim was to write something about a Jew for instance, and this piece of writing was to incite violence against the Jewish community that person should be faced with punishment. If it is necessary to remove that individual through imprisonment or at worse case that person be killed then it is acceptable for the security of the citizens of the state.

Could anybody put up with a Hitler like individual who you knew would ultimatley bring about deaths of individuals with his writing or speeches? My answer is No and it is better that he/ she be imprisoned.

However in any situation if something is said to provoke debate and discussion such as for instance a Christian saying that the Prophet Muhammad is an imposter then that should be accepted as he not inciting violence. Religious debates sometimes offend but these points MUST be made so that thoughtful discussion is provoked. As long as offense is not the intent.

2) I completely agree that civilians should not intentionally be targeted as we see in suicide bombings or todays "conventional warfare".

I would however like to pose another question.

Do you think that killing civilians is acceptable if it saves the deaths of more civilians. I'll give you Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example

 

[DT Strain]

Thank you for your reply Zaim187. It has been a long time since I've visited these forums. Please forgive the delay in my response.

In response to Question 1)

In an Islamic state a person who intentionally vilifies and demonizes people of any religion creed or origin because of their religion creed or origin in an inciteful manner and threatness the social cohesion of that state I believe should be punished. In an Islamic state the rights of the minority should be very much respected so If a Muslim was to write something about a Jew for instance, and this piece of writing was to incite violence against the Jewish community that person should be faced with punishment. If it is necessary to remove that individual through imprisonment or at worse case that person be killed then it is acceptable for the security of the citizens of the state.

Could anybody put up with a Hitler like individual who you knew would ultimatley bring about deaths of individuals with his writing or speeches? My answer is No and it is better that he/ she be imprisoned.

However in any situation if something is said to provoke debate and discussion such as for instance a Christian saying that the Prophet Muhammad is an imposter then that should be accepted as he not inciting violence. Religious debates sometimes offend but these points MUST be made so that thoughtful discussion is provoked. As long as offense is not the intent.

I will compare this with a Western perspective - not so as to argue, but merely to compare for purposes of communication...

The above seems to assume that offense is something that is given by the offender, and the offended then has the offense cast upon them without say in the matter. By the Western view, offense is always a two-step process. The speaker says something, with intent to offend or not, and the listener then *chooses* to be offended, or not, by what was said. By this view, there is nothing that can be said which, by itself, can harm a person without their willingness and choice to be harmed or offended. If there is lack of social cohesion, then, this is thought of as being the fault of listeners who cannot maturely or tolerantly accept the free speech and opinions of others when they find the opinions offensive.

There is the matter of slander, fraud, and incitement, which are exceptions: slander if it is spreading falsehoods about hard facts (not opinion) concerning someone to defame them, fraud if it is to misrepresent and cheat someone in buying, selling, or receiving money, and incitement if the words are conspiring to commit crimes or specifically calling for others to do so.

But as for simple offensive opinions and insults of even highly important things or even highly derogatory, these are considered 'mere words' and those who allow themselves to become moved by them are viewed as child-like or unwise in Western culture. Surely, to outlaw such speech is viewed, not only as unthinkable, but a violation of human rights. To even fine someone a tiny sum for speech alone, even if offensive, would seem unthinkable to a westerner, and death beyond imagination - a law worth rebellion against the government over in itself.

2) I completely agree that civilians should not intentionally be targeted as we see in suicide bombings or todays "conventional warfare".

Are you saying that conventional warfare intentionally targets civilians? If so, then either (1) we have a different definition of "intentionally targeting", or (2) we have a different understanding of what sort of activities take place in conventional warfare.

Let me be clear: my original question used the phrase "intentionally targeting" as meaning that the reason for firing the weapons or making an attack is specifically to kill innocent civilians. I would suspect, that if (1) is the case in our mismatch, it might be this is your position: that if a soldier fires a weapon, missile, etc, with the intention of taking out a military, armed, or leadership target - but knows that civilians may likely be killed as a by-product, that is "intentionally targeting" civilians.

If this is, in fact, your view, then I would want to clarify that the question meant to refer to making attacks with the express intent being the killing of innocent civilians - not merely attacking legitimate targets but with knowledge that civilians could be harmed.

If, however, (2) is the reason for our mismatch, then I would ask when and where you believe conventional warfare has taken place where killing innocent civilians have been the explicit purpose of attacks?

I would however like to pose another question.
Do you think that killing civilians is acceptable if it saves the deaths of more civilians. I'll give you Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example

I'm not sure that's a good example. The argument for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not that it would save more civilian lives, but that it would save the lives of U.S. military people who would have had to die in large numbers to take the island. As such, I don't think that was a good reason.

As for the heart of your question, I haven't yet settled on any certainties regarding that issue. This is something I still need to think more about.

Thanks

 

[Muslimwoman]

But as for simple offensive opinions and insults of even highly important things or even highly derogatory, these are considered 'mere words' and those who allow themselves to become moved by them are viewed as child-like or unwise in Western culture. Surely, to outlaw such speech is viewed, not only as unthinkable, but a violation of human rights. To even fine someone a tiny sum for speech alone, even if offensive, would seem unthinkable to a westerner, and death beyond imagination - a law worth rebellion against the government over in itself.

Hi Strain

I am intrigued that you present this as the western view, yet the UK government have introduced numerous laws to ensure freedom of speech does not allow people of certain minorities to be offended by "child like words". In the 80's coloured people could not be called black, yet could call themselves black as this was not offensive to them. Speaking against gay people is now legislated and of course the new anti terror law that includes imprisonment for 'glorification of violence'. Would you not say that this western attitude of simply ignoring child like words could simply dismiss the idiots that glorify violence in speeches? (please note this legislation includes using words that are considered 'abusive or insulting')

If, however, (2) is the reason for our mismatch, then I would ask when and where you believe conventional warfare has taken place where killing innocent civilians have been the explicit purpose of attacks?

US (2004 Fallujah - the US used white phosphorus which is banned),
Bosnia, Georgia, Israel, Cambodia, Rwanda, Nepal, China, Germany, UK & US (eg Dresden - look up Churchill's response to this bombing) need I go on?

You may also want to consider why the UK and US sent envoys to Geneva to block the international ban on cluster bombs. Cluster bombs have a devastating effect on the civilian population as between 20 and 40% usually do not detonate on impact, so lay in wait for civilian targets. I accept this is not targeting civilians but it does make you wonder why the UK and US are so fiercly defending their right to use munitions that are known to kill and injure so may civilians.

 

[Abdullah]

But as for simple offensive opinions and insults of even highly important things or even highly derogatory, these are considered 'mere words' and those who allow themselves to become moved by them are viewed as child-like or unwise in Western culture. Surely, to outlaw such speech is viewed, not only as unthinkable, but a violation of human rights. To even fine someone a tiny sum for speech alone, even if offensive, would seem unthinkable to a westerner, and death beyond imagination - a law worth rebellion against the government over in itself.

Hi strain

I am surprised you have said that, for there are verry strict laws in the west that prohibit [to degrees where people can even be charged and prosecuted for more serious one's] any offensive, threatening, abusive, insulting, hatemongering, inciting hate and violence, etc, language/words.

Just recently we have seen the 'Big Brother' saga, where there was an institutional and national 'witch-hunt' against a housemate that used language that could be percieved as being racist.

We've had members of the BNP [The British National Party], Muslims and non-Muslim civillians benig charged and prosectued [resulting in convitions for some] for using 'offensive, hate/violencemongering/inciting words'. And we have the slighetest critical remarks agaisnt Jews and Gays condemned as 'anti-semetic' and 'homopohbic' respectively all over the western world, resulting in prosecution and even lengthy jail terms [for denynig holocaust ]for some.

Considering the above, it is clear that westerners take what they consider to be offensive/hate/violence inciting, abusive words just as seriously [if not more] as Muslims.

Peace.

 

[bananabrain]

And we have the slightest critical remarks agaisnt Jews and Gays condemned as 'anti-semitic' and 'homopohbic' respectively all over the western world, resulting in prosecution and even lengthy jail terms [for denying holocaust] for some.

what, so you think that calling for gays to be thrown over cliffs and jews to be murdered "wherever they are" is "slightly critical", do you?

and what precisely do you think ought to be done to holocaust deniers? i should say that personally i am for free speech, but applied equally; in other words, neither calling muhammad a "paedophile" (as many stupid bigots do) nor denying the holocaust should be illegal; only by showing how ridiculous and hateful such positions are can we avoid accusations that somehow people are trying to "cover up the truth". however, when people call explicitly for other people to be murdered, that is crossing a line into incitement and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[17th Angel]

Is, Islam a religion of peace? Yes, it sure can be.
Nation of Islam.
Al-Arqam.
al-Hassani.
al-Qaeda.
People's Mujahedeen.
Islamic Fundamentalists.
Soldiers of Heaven.
Rufaqa.

Is christianity a religion of peace? yes.... it can be.
KKK.
Westboro Baptists.
Operation Rescue.
Stand to Reason.
Chalcedon Foundation.
American Vision.
Traditional Values Coalition.
Family Research Institute....

Is Judaism a religion of peace? Yes... That too can be.
Jew Watch.
Jewish Defense League.
The International Jew.
International Jew Elite.
Jew World Empire.
Aish Ha Torah.
Kabbalah Center.
Foundation for Religious Freedom.
Neturei Karta.

... You know where I am going with this... So, I'll stop there. You all have you good eggs... And you ALL have your bad eggs....

 

[bananabrain]

hang on a minute, 17th:

"Jew Watch" is not run by jews, it is run by a bunch of virulent anti-semites
"The International Jew" is an anti-semitic book by henry ford which even he later disowned. the only place i have ever seen it on sale is at islamic bookshops in the charing cross road, shame on them
"International Jew Elite" and "Jew World Empire" are simply terms bandied in the anti-semitic ether. they have no more reality than the "elders of zion", or what i believe is referred to as "ZOG".
the "Foundation for Religious Freedom" is a scientology organisation and has nothing to do with judaism
"Neturei Karta" are a bunch of ultra-orthodox nutters who hate the idea of a "state of israel" so much they are prepared to buddy up with the likes of ahmedinejad - in terms of their relationship to non-jews, they despise them, but are certainly not interested in attacking them verbally or physically.
the "kabbalah center" is principally concerned with making whopping piles of cash out of credulous nincompoops and celebrities, but has very little to do with mainstream judaism and is shunned by nearly all official community organisations
i dare say i know more about aish ha-torah than you do and have had a substantial amount of contact with them. their mission is to basically turn all jews [ultra]orthodox and the way they go about it may be problematic, but again, they are not actually unpleasant to anyone except non-orthodox jews and that i'd say makes them kind of an internal problem if you ask me, plus their chances of success are pretty minimal.

i'll give you the "Jewish Defense League" but there are far more unpleasant jewish organisations out there which would make a better list, namely the racist "kach" movement or a number of the nuttier west bank settler organisations but fortunately their ambitions are limited to the area of israel and palestine. i think your attempt at balance, however laudable, is a bit, well, unbalanced.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[17th Angel]

Well on a few websites I cross referenced they were under the Jew area.... I did check like three four sites as I have stated I know naff all really about Judaism. But any way it still does balance... Fact you have bad people and you have good... As does every other religion... No soul religion is a bunch of freaking angels Never will be either.

It may only be here or there or world wide... Or only this certain type of person or area... Whatever... They still are a group of bad people.

 

[bananabrain]

ok, well, 17th, as you know, people do talk a lot of crap about us and if they don't know they'll happily make it up or talk about "everybody knows" or whatever. of course i agree that there are bad apples in every barrel but the fact is judaism is one of the most misunderstood (and intentionally misrepresented) ethno-religious groups in the world. my point was that if you want to look for our bad apples, there are nastier ones than the ones you picked.

now gimme teh dam donut.

b'shalom

bananabrain