is islam a religion of peace?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

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]

Originally Posted by DT Strain

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.

Originally Posted by zaim187

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.

Originally Posted by zaim187

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?

Originally Posted by zaim187

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]

Originally Posted by DT Strain

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')

Originally Posted by DT Strain

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]

Originally Posted by DT Strain

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

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by 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

Yeah, appolgise for that, it is just that the sites I saw where showing this so, I (d'oh) assumed. I am sure, you know my intention wasn't to misrepresent on purpose. I am sure there are indeed nastier... But, I dunno, I am getting to a point where it is either good or bad... You know? That's very bad... That's not that bad... That is terribly bad... To me they are all just... "bad" Trying to make my world as black and white as possible and get rid of grey... Grey = time consuming trouble. Heh... This donut ain't kosher! :O and has custard in it!

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

"The International Jew" is an anti-semitic book by henry ford which even he later disowned.

That is just too funny. This is my book, I wrote it, now buy it and give me money.

What you don't like it? Anti-sematic? Not selling well? What do you mean people protesting? Hey I didn't actually write it you know, just put my name on it. In fact I didn't even agree to that. Hey I never even heard of the book. I disown it.

Good one!!!

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

That is just too funny. This is my book, I wrote it, now buy it and give me money.

What you don't like it? Anti-sematic? Not selling well? What do you mean people protesting? Hey I didn't actually write it you know, just put my name on it. In fact I didn't even agree to that. Hey I never even heard of the book. I disown it.

Good one!!!

*bites bottom lip* lol...

[bananabrain]

it would be funny if it wasn't so widely available still, rather like the "protocols" (not that i want anything banned, of course) except for the worrying development over the last couple of decades that despite the fact that everyone outside the muslim world knows that one is an embarrassment and the other a forgery, both are widely disseminated by saudi and iranian publishing houses and contribute to almost ubiquitous neo-antisemitism in the middle east, which conveniently explain's israel's failure to be eliminated - you see, those rascally jews, they control everything everywhere, that's why we brave warriors have been unable to prevail against the zionist entity. there was even a mini-series based on the "protocols" in egypt recently, i believe, as well as continuing blood libels in syrian novels and on hizbollah TV.

gah.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

My apologies BB, I wasn't trying to make light of the situation, just of peoples inane publicity stunts.

As you know I live among the anti-sematism of the arab people and I 'have views' about it. Education is the key imo, as with all things. What I feel we need is a respected Muslim scholar to write an accurate account of the Jewish history and theology. To write a book that puts everything into context, we have spoken about certain groups of Muslims and Jews in history and these need to be put into historical context, as well as context of how they followed or failed to follow their faith. I think I have mentioned before that small egyptian children are taught to hate Jews, both by parents and in schools. It is shameful but will take a concerted effort by educators to change this but as with most issues this must come from within, or is just dismissed as anti Muslim propaganda.

Salaam
MW