Islam: Religion of peace

College Confidential Community
61

<p>

Hmm, that’s not exactly true. First of all this peaceful coexistence was only peaceful in comparison to the situation in Christendom. Otherwise there was more than enough violence against religous minorities in the muslim world as well. Moreover you assertion ignores the dhimmi concept under which non-muslim minorities in the muslim world were treated as second-rated citizens with no political, social or legal rights to speak of. So unfortunately even historically the inter-religious situation in the muslim world was not nearly as idyllic as you describe.</p>

<p>

While I may or may not agree with your assertion of the Western explotation of the Middle East, even if you were right - the West exploited not only the Middle East but also Asia, Africa, South America and lots of other regions. Yet it’s only the muslim world that resorted to terrorism. At any rate no one has been oppressing the muslims for the last half a century or so, no one other than their own muslim rulers that is. No one’s been oppressing Pakistan, we’ve been giving them billions of $$ of aid instead, no one’s been oppressing the Saudis, we are buying their oil at absurdly high prices, they are swimming in money. But the situation is only getting worse, not better.</p>

62

<p>@baller4lyfe
No love in Judaism? Maybe the whole religion isn’t based off God loving people, but that doesn’t mean that there is no love in Judaism. I suggest you read about the life of the chabad rabbi who was murdered last week and then make assertions.</p>

63

<p>Well I’m not hoping to sound ignorant in fact I said in my post this may sound like a blanket statement. What did you mean about your first sentence? God doesn’t love people in Judaism? What exactly are you talking about?</p>

<p>This is the breakdown on how I understand the two main religions:</p>

<p>Christianity: God loves his children, God loves you, etc.
Islam: Allah loves those who do good, Allah loves those who are good-hearted
Judaism: Yahwheh…(what) ?</p>

<p>I’m not trying to sound like rude, but rather am in need of clarification of a principle in Judaism that is similar to the other two above. So, please fill in, if you can.</p>

64

<p>“I hate to point this out to you, but you’re promoting the stereotype of the ignorant redneck christian…the reason India has more minority leaders, is because India is a VERY diverse country. India has the 2nd largest Muslim population in the world, after Indonesia, so it’s not surprising it has Muslim leaders, as opposed to its neighbor Pakistan, which is 95% Muslim. India has far more Muslims than Pakistan. I agree with you India is the more tolerant nation, but remember is has the 2nd largest Islamic population worldwide”</p>

<p>Wow, you’re a complete schmuck. I suppose that this is because of your head being stuck in the clouds, or should I say stars while the majority of us are back on Earth. For one, you’re completly distorting my argument. I clearly stated that:</p>

<p>“I’m not going to say every Muslim is a terrorist, because as a Christian I’d be foolish since Chrisitanity has made its own serious flaws.”</p>

<p>So, I’m in no way giving a free pass to all the crimes Chrisitanity has done, and just attacking Islam. As far as your argument goes, its complete nonsense. Here’s why, you’re basically asserting that based on the size of the population, a people should control the power. Well, I can point to American Jews who are only 2.5% of America’s population but are major power in the political spectrum. The Israel Lobby, our last 3 Chairmen of Federal Reserves (Volcker, Greenspan, Bernanke), Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth Bader Guinsberg, and many more Jewish Americans illustrate the clout of Jews despite their small size in America’s population. On the flip side America’s black population, which is 12% should be based on your reasoning be a very influential part of American politics, and they somewhat are (mainly because of Obama) but their clout doesn’t even remotely compare to that of Jews. </p>

<p>The same idea applies to India. In India, Muslims are doing well because of India’s secular and more inclusive policies like you and I have mentioned, and NOT DIVERSITY. Like Muslim nations, India can very easily screw Muslims by passing discriminatory policies, but since their secular and give opportunities to people regardless of religion.</p>

<p>On the flip side, Islamic states are basically screwing over minorities and ratify laws which are discriminatory. Iran’s leader really exemplifies this with his comments on Israel, Jews, non-Muslims, etc. If Muslim states reformed and modernized, and stopped obssesing over religion and passing injust laws against non-Muslims I GUARANTEE you that you’d see a Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. leader in a Muslim majority nation. </p>

<p>Essentially, its about government’s modernizing and realizing that "hey he maybe a (Muslim, Christian, fill in the blank) and we are a Muslim, Christian, fill in the blank majority, but that shouldn’t stop us from hiring him and doing what’s best for our country. Muslim nations haven’t done this, so there’s absolutely no reason for me to believe Islam is tolerant or inclusive.</p>

65

<p>Islamic terrorism is NOT a new concept. The Kharijites were essentially an Islamist terrorist group in the 7th century.
As for your idea that other religions could exist peacefully, yes a dynamic understanding of Islam would lead to that conclusion. But at the same time, scholars even as far back as the 8th century argued over the nature of jihad–whether it was offensive or defensive. Those who argued offensive would essentially agree with many terrorists today, that Islamic borders must be expanded. You’re using defensive jihad as a cover-all for a multifaceted religion.</p>

66

<p>jihad is struggle with yourself INSIDE of your mind in FIRST place. I would recommend learning arabic and reading Qur’an.</p>

67

<p>india should have taken care of this problem (or at least finished the job) in 1947.</p>

<p>and a lot of people seem to forget that christ actually followed through with what he preached. Mohammad preached peace and at the same time slaughtered countless innocents, forcibly changed people’s religion, etc. </p>

<p>and all abrahamic religions are violent to the core; the only reason judaism hasn’t been painted that way is because the jews haven’t really gained that much political power through history to show off the violence of their religion as much as christians and muslims have.</p>

68

<p>legion: "Mohammad preached peace and at the same time slaughtered countless innocents, forcibly changed people’s religion, etc. "</p>

<p>Forcibly changed people’s religion. Your ignorance makes me cringe. The Koran explicitly states that there is no compulsion in religion. As for slaughtering countless innocents, it Islam forbids even during war the killing of women, children, elderly people, and even cutting down trees.</p>

<p>I notice that some people on this forum express the idea of exterminating Muslims. What a wonderfully peaceful and just idea! While we’re at it, why don’t we just kill all Arabs as well. After all, they’re all just a bunch of greasy-bearded, robe-wearing nutcases out to get us all, aren’t they?..Really people, in you’re attack of fanatics, take care not become radical yourselves.</p>

<p>Moving on. I personally know Muslims from a variety of racial backgrounds, not only in the US, but in the Middle East as well. Not a single one has a shred of intent on performing any sort of act of violence. Their thoughts are more limited to what your ordinary person would have: studying for exams, getting a job and education, what’s for dinner, etc. Those out there who commit atrocities in the name of Islam are one of two:
-Brainwashed and as such ignorant of the true nature and teachings of Islam, or
-Not truly Muslim and simply doing what they do for some other purpose, such as money, power, fame, or even national pride as opposed to religious conviction.</p>

69

<p>“Forcibly changed people’s religion.”</p>

<p>Not forcibly, but non-Muslims in the Caliphate paid higher taxes and were ineligible for good jobs. So coercively, not forcibly.</p>

<p>“Islam forbids even during war the killing of women, children, elderly people, and even cutting down trees.”</p>

<p>Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that Mohammed was a conqueror, and he’s the second most revered figure in Islam after Allah. And Muslims aren’t environmentalists or anything, it’s just that there are hardly any trees in the middle east. :p</p>

<p>“Not truly Muslim”</p>

<p>Nope, the jihadists are true Muslims in that they follow every tenement of Islam to the extreme, including the original interpretation of jihad as holy war (not the moderate interpretation of conquering one’s mind) and oppression of women. I doubt your friends strictly follow the Koran.</p>

70

<p>Hardly any trees? My friend, you are gravely mistaken. Overall, there are certainly not that many trees as you would find elsewhere, but where there, are trees, they are present in abundance. Have you ever wondered where dates come from? Well, they come from date palms, which were grown in orchards. There were people whose living was to grow these trees and sell their fruit, and they were rather wealthy.</p>

<p>You sound very confident and self-assured that the jihadists are “true Muslims” that “follow every tenement of Islam to the extreme.” Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s not so. It is not an “interpretation” that jihad is a conquering of one’s mind, Mohammed directly and clearly said so. As for oppression of women, do I really need to reiterate the fact that has been posted again and again? It is not part of Islam, it is part of culture that has become so meshed with Islam that people can’t tell the difference anymore. Just to state a fact: Women were treated much, much in Arabia when Islam came along.</p>

<p>As for my friends not adhering to the Koran: As you said yourself, it is only a doubt of yours. The person who could make a better judgment on this issue would be me, and I will tell you that the vast majority of my friends do indeed follow the Koran quite rigidly.</p>

<p>I stand by my claim.</p>

71

<p>“Mohammed directly and clearly said so” while conquering cities and nations, not his mind.</p>

<p>Look at the Taliban. They were Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS, meaning they followed every part of Islam to the letter. If you’re hanging out with them I’d worry for your safety.</p>

72

<p>Conquering cities and nations does not require slaughtering innocent civilians, though historically many rulers have done so. Mohammed did not.</p>

<p>As for the Taliban: Were they really Islamic fundamentalists? Who said they were? The media? Not exactly convincing.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is: Despite what people may do, and regardless of under what banner they claim to do so, Islam itself remains a religion that does not preach terror.</p>

73

<p>“Islam itself remains a religion that does not preach terror.”</p>

<p>It does, yet most Muslims don’t follow that part. Case closed.</p>

74

<p>^^Most Muslims? You’ve got to be kidding me! There’s over a billion of them, and you’re saying that the majority condone terrorism? Give me a break. From your statement, I find your name contradictory</p>

75

<p>Well, most may not commit such activities like the terrorists do, but most certainly support - or <em>at least</em> sympathize with - them.</p>

76

<p>What Giggitus says is true. Muslims make up about 21% of the world population. If most Muslims, condone/participate in terrorism, I’d say we’re all in hot water, wouldn’t you agree?</p>

<p>Also, LogicWarrior, you agreed that Islam remains a religion that does not preach terror. Thus, thus that “don’t follow that part” aren’t exactly Muslims, now, are they?</p>

<p>Q.E.D.</p>

77

<p>I said most Muslims don’t follow the part of the Koran that preaches terror. Don’t twist my statements around.</p>

78

<p>Sorry if I misunderstood you, but if you look back to your statement, it really could be interpreted either way. Try to be a little clearer. </p>

<p>In any case, I think this is a pointless argument because we have different notions as what is fact and what is fiction.
The purpose of an argument is to convince the other side of your own point of view. Clearly, neither of us will be able to do so if we continue to discredit each others’ claims.</p>

<p>Essentially, what I am trying to say is that the way this is going, I am not going to convince you, nor are you going to convince me.</p>

79

<p>"“Islam itself remains a religion that does not preach terror.”</p>

<p>It does" preach terror. There’s really no other way to see it.</p>

80

<p>Have a question for posters knowledgeable about the Koran. I have been told that the rule of interpretation of the Koran is that, where there is an ambiguity in text, the most recent governs, and that consequently the “sword” verses (which are more recent and first in text) about killing the non converting infidel supercede chronologically earlier (but later in the text) language about not forcing conversion. Is this valid?</p>