Is Islam actually peaceful?

[The Lord]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Perhaps: Stereotype?

A stereotype can be simply used based on ignorance, but bigotry implies hate, intent and malice.

[The Lord]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I cannot, and *do not*, paint all Muslims with one brush. I hold each to their own actions, just as I do anybody else. When the dominant attitude among a given people is hatred towards any not like them, persecuting for following the same G-d by a different path, culturally discriminating and acting prejudicially complete with lynching, something is not right. Are we in the west to believe that whole Sharia nations are misinterpreting Islam? What if Islam became the dominant faith in America, and Sharia became the law of the land (as I am sure the hope of many Muslims is a world of Sharia)? Would Christians and Jews, and Buddhists and Hindis, and Native Americans, and any others, become subject to death for their beliefs?

Or, are we in the west to just lay idly by and believe everything we are told because someone, however well intended, tells us something that contradicts what we see?

Shifting the subject onto Christianity is to avoid the subject at hand in this thread. There are plenty of threads dealing with the conflicts in Christianity. Why is it so difficult to discuss with Muslims the conflicts in Islam?

I do apologize, if somehow my comments are taken as prejudicial towards the whole of Islam. I do not apologize for speaking truth. G-d demands it of me, as G-d does of others as well. Including Muslims.

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. If Muslims wanted to they could have done it because they had absolute military power at the time. But they did not. I can take you to Spain, Sicily, and Malta right now and you will see them there, enjoying the fruits of culture that the Muslims brought them when they were still living in caves. I can take you to any country in the Middle East and you will see Christians walking around with crosses on their necks, churches everywhere, and even hear the bells ring on Sundays (Tell me which "democratic" Christian country allows Muslims to sound the call to payer?). There is nothing in the history of Islam similar to the Inquisition or the Holocaust. Sure, there were some times of civil strife, but they were localized and all communities in such places and at such times were hurt.

You do not want Muslims to respond by attacking Christianity and Judaism, but you yourself use a contrasting language. What are you claiming to criticize Islam about if not in contrast to Christians and Jews who do not do the same things? And please explain to us why Muslims are guests in Western countries? I thought Western countries were liberal democracies of their citizens, are they not? So who in hell decided that they are not the countries of their Muslim citizens?

Listen, it is easy to formulate arguments to put others on the defensive, and which they cannot win. I can ask you to prove to me that you are not a child molester, and there would be no way on hell you can get me evidence to prove that you are NOT a child molester. This is why the law, when it is just, requires the accuser to provide positive evidence for his/her allegations. Arabs and Muslims have been falling for this Western colonial trap for about a century now and they have always been trying to defend themselves against the western onslaught against their countries, themselves, and their culture. They are stupid to even think that that would make a difference if they respond. Instead, they should analyze the West and Christianity by the same prejudiced lens that the West uses, and then we shall see how the West and Christianity come out. One handicap Muslims have in this is that they always say that they cannot attack Christianity and Judaism as religions, or their prophets, because Islam requires them to believe in and respect these religions. I say, and I am an outsider to all, garbage. Do what you have to do.

As for your examples of the Cartoons about Muhammad and the Satanic Verses, I hope that someone who can write eloquently as you do can tell the difference between criticism and baseless attack. If you are talking about artistic license, then I have a couple of cartoons about Jesus I would like to publish on this site. They involve his mother and father, which is a valid criticism because it is a central topic in Christian arguments about true belief (are you getting the picture since I do not want to be explicit in order not to offend anyone). I am sure this site, hosted in the Great Empire of Great Britain, supports freedom of expression, right? And while we are at it, I like to write an article about how the Holocaust did not exist. What is that? I cannot! Horror of horrors: what happened to my freedom of expression and artistic license?

As for your claim that Muslims avoid discussing the inner conflicts of Islam and shift the subject onto Christianity, and I am adding Judaism, maybe because they are intertwined. These religions share development and history together, and Christianity and Islam are the only two comparable world systems. One cannot compare Islam with Shamanism because they have nothing in common (even though I see some similarities with Christianity). My point is, like you always drag Islam into your discussions, Muslims always drag Christianity into their discussions, especially so since the aliments of Muslim societies can along the wave of Christian colonialism. As for Jews, how can a Muslim talk about current events and issues without dragging in the central issue of Palestine in shaping the modern Muslim world?

I am tired now. Bye.

[aburaees]

I don't know why Islam is being marketed as the "religion of peace", when first and foremost Islam is the religion of submission, submission to God - peace is what the individual gains from submitting to God, and not necessarily the right of every individual on the planet.
If a person genuinely wants to know to what extent unpeaceful measures can be implemented within the paradigm of Islam and in what context, you need only read the Sirah (biographies) of the Prophet Muhammad and the Hadith collections in conjunction with the Qur'an.
Of course when answering the question that the title of this thread asks, it is helpful to know what is meant by "Islam"... are we talking Qur'an only, or Qur'an and Hadiths, or Qur'an and anything else?

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Personally, I think most songs of old were more like "rap" than anything else.

I have a lot of friends of different religious backgrounds from Muslims to SiKhs, to Christian to buddhists and we all seem to really like Tu-Pac for some reason.

Mattter fact, (funny story) when I worked in a casino, I saw some people who had to be in thier 60's pull up in their car listening to Tu-Pac. That was hilarious to me and my buddies.

Long point short, music is universal, and so are "Humans"

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by The Lord

I do not play keyboards, if that is what you are asking about . However, I play the drums (not in a band now) and I like classic rock and heavy metal. However, I prefer the older bands to the newer ones.

Oops, sorry... it was InLove that described a meeting with God (swt).

[The Lord]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

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]

Originally Posted by The Lord

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.

Originally Posted by The Lord

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]

Regards, the Lard.

Originally Posted by The Lord

[color=black]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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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?