Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

[Stevil]

iSok...if you had actually listened to the debate you'd know why the audience voted against the claim that islam is a religion of peace.  Peaceful religions don't have any passages which call for violence.

No but many people asked me off this.
I did indeed not read the article.
We're only allowed to defend, the passages that are in the Qur'an also are from a context in the Qur'an.
Not just the context, but also the time in which the relevation came.

But when I saw this topic, I thought of Stevil, Tank and Asmodean, they asked me multiple times about this.
So I bumbed in, can anyone answer?

I was hoping you could tell us about how Islam is peacefull and beautiful and treat woman as equals and how the average Muslim person disagrees with terorism and violence and women oppression and do not want to blow up Israel.

I agree with regards to USA though, I don't know why they invaded Iraq it wasn't WOMD, 9/11 maybe it was oil, maybe a feud between the Bushs and Saddam, maybe something strategic. It seems to me USA only get involved when they personally have something to gain, they are certainly not the world peace keepers that they make out they are.

[iSok]

iSok...if you had actually listened to the debate you'd know why the audience voted against the claim that islam is a religion of peace.  Peaceful religions don't have any passages which call for violence.

No but many people asked me off this.
I did indeed not read the article.
We're only allowed to defend, the passages that are in the Qur'an also are from a context in the Qur'an.
Not just the context, but also the time in which the relevation came.

But when I saw this topic, I thought of Stevil, Tank and Asmodean, they asked me multiple times about this.
So I bumbed in, can anyone answer?

I was hoping you could tell us about how Islam is peacefull and beautiful and treat woman as equals and how the average Muslim person disagrees with terorism and violence and women oppression and do not want to blow up Israel.

I agree with regards to USA though, I don't know why they invaded Iraq it wasn't WOMD, 9/11 maybe it was oil, maybe a feud between the Bushs and Saddam, maybe something strategic. It seems to me USA only get involved when they personally have something to gain, they are certainly not the world peace keepers that they make out they are.

Islam itself is perfect.
It's follower however are not....
But that cannot be blamed on Islam, if you would take away the factor 'Islam' it would be probably even worse...


For example, do you know why there are certain area's in Afghanistan where there is a lot of fighting?
It's because of the people that inhabit these area's, the Pashtun/Pathan/Pakhtun, they are the ones constantly fighting.
However many of them follow Islam, Islam teaches them to be patient and not be an agressor.
I can assure you, if you would take the factor Islam away in Afghanistan....NATO would not stay for a day longer.

[Stevil]

For example, do you know why there are certain area's in Afghanistan where there is a lot of fighting?
It's because of the people that inhabit these area's, the Pashtun/Pathan/Pakhtun, they are the ones constantly fighting.
However many of them follow Islam, Islam teaches them to be patient and not be an agressor.
I can assure you, if you would take the factor Islam away in Afghanistan....NATO would not stay for a day longer.

I don't know much about Afghanistan. I saw Rambo 3, and it looks pretty rugged country. I assume it is a strategic position and that is why Russia and America fight for it. I don't know.

However I am unclear with regards to what you are saying. Are you saying that NATO are only fighting there because they want to kill Muslims?

[iSok]

For example, do you know why there are certain area's in Afghanistan where there is a lot of fighting?
It's because of the people that inhabit these area's, the Pashtun/Pathan/Pakhtun, they are the ones constantly fighting.
However many of them follow Islam, Islam teaches them to be patient and not be an agressor.
I can assure you, if you would take the factor Islam away in Afghanistan....NATO would not stay for a day longer.

I don't know much about Afghanistan. I saw Rambo 3, and it looks pretty rugged country. I assume it is a strategic position and that is why Russia and America fight for it. I don't know.

However I am unclear with regards to what you are saying. Are you saying that NATO are only fighting there because they want to kill Muslims?

I myself can also just guess why America decided to invade it......
No you understood me wrong, you are saying that you would like to know why Islam is a beautiful religion.

I just gave an example, about the Pashtun (they tradtionally follow the Pashtunwali 'the way of the Pashtun'), some Pashtuns choose to follow Pashtunwali
rather than Islam. But the majority follows rather Islam when the two codes contradicht one and another.
If you take Islam away, hell would break loose for NAVO in Afghanistan.
I wouldn't be exagerating that a Pashtun that rather follows Pashtunwali instead of Islam is a modern day Spartan.

[Whitney]

2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
2:217 They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.
2:218 Lo! those who believe, and those who emigrate (to escape the persecution) and strive in the way of Allah, these have hope of Allah's mercy. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

will have a painful doom

^numerous instances....not peaceful in any context.

3:155 Lo! those of you who turned back on the day when the two hosts met, Satan alone it was who caused them to backslide, because of some of that which they have earned. Now Allah hath forgiven them. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Clement.     (3:155) Those who retreat while fighting in a holy war are inspired by Satan.

"Those of you who turned back on the day when the two hosts met, Satan alone it was who caused them to backslide."
3:156 O ye who believe! Be not as those who disbelieved and said of their brethren who went abroad in the land or were fighting in the field: If they had been (here) with us they would not have died or been killed: that Allah may make it anguish in their hearts. Allah giveth life and causeth death; and Allah is Seer of what ye do.
3:157 And what though ye be slain in Allah's way or die therein ? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass.

^choosing not to fight is the influence of satan and those who fight for allah will be rewarded in heaven.

Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged.

^Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

4:69 Whoso obeyeth Allah and the messenger, they are with those unto whom Allah hath shown favour, of the prophets and the saints and the martyrs and the righteous. The best of company are they!
4:70 That is bounty from Allah, and Allah sufficeth as Knower.
4:71 O ye who believe! Take your precautions, then advance the proven ones, or advance all together.    
4:72 Lo! among you there is he who loitereth; and if disaster overtook you, he would say: Allah hath been gracious unto me since I was not present with them.    
4:73 And if a bounty from Allah befell you, he would surely cry, as if there had been no love between you and him: Oh, would that I had been with them, then should I have achieved a great success!    
4:74 Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.
4:75 How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!
4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

I could go on...but I think the above is enough...it is not hard to find violent instruction in the quran, even when reading in context.

Again, Peaceful religions don't include calls to violence.

[iSok]

@Whitney,

Could you post this in the other topic, I just created?

[Whitney]

@Whitney,

Could you post this in the other topic, I just created?

That topic isn't related to my point.

[The Magic Pudding]

I had the impression the prophet said violence was a bad thing, but then circumstances changed, some infidels had to be taken care of, so violence is OK if god or his worldly representatives say so.  Seems a bit dodgy changing like that, if it did happen.
That's a dilemma for religion, change it and the divinity of the words are called into question, don't change and it seems like ancient blood thirsty, misogynist shit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A big thing missing from this thread, which I'm surprised no one has mentioned, is the idea of "interpretation".  

If you argue that we no longer keep slaves or stone adulterers because moral standards have changed, you ought not turn around and argue that people are evil because of religion, when there are obviously other cultural and social influences.

Religions are interpreted by followers, and you'd be wise to deal with each follower as an individual, rather than broad-brushing them because of some verse they might interpret figuratively instead of literally.

Now, that's not as easy, but it's likely more accurate.  Evil or good are concepts defined by actions, not words.  Saying "I want to kill you" may or may not be evil; killing you would likely be evil.  The idea that a religion can in and of itself be "peaceful," or "violent," is stupid.  It can only be what its followers make it.  A religion cannot be peaceful, or warlike.  To think otherwise is to make a category error.  A religion is only a set of words, and because words must be interpreted, the qualities aroused have a source in the human as well as the text.

The vast majority of Muslims I've known -- and that is many; I lived for four years in Iran -- were peaceful people of good heart.  This horseshit stereotyping is unbecoming of freethinkers, and those indulging in it need to think more.

I'm surprised that this sort of caution should even prove needed.

[LegendarySandwich]

A big thing missing from this thread, which I'm surprised no one has mentioned, is the idea of "interpretation".  

If you argue that we no longer keep slaves or stone adulterers because moral standards have changed, you ought not turn around and argue that people are evil because of religion, when there are obviously other cultural and social influences.

Religions are interpreted by followers, and you'd be wise to deal with each follower as an individual, rather than broad-brushing them because of some verse they might interpret figuratively instead of literally.

Now, that's not as easy, but it's likely more accurate.  Evil or good are concepts defined by actions, not words.  Saying "I want to kill you" may or may not be evil; killing you would likely be evil.  The idea that a religion can in and of itself be "peaceful," or "violent," is stupid.  It can only be what its followers make it.  A religion cannot be peaceful, or warlike.  To think otherwise is to make a category error.  A religion is only a set of words, and because words must be interpreted, the qualities aroused have a source in the human as well as the text.

The vast majority of Muslims I've known -- and that is many; I lived for four years in Iran -- were peaceful people of good heart.  This horseshit stereotyping is unbecoming of freethinkers, and those indulging in it need to think more.

I'm surprised that this sort of caution should even prove needed.

Uh, hello? Have you been listening to what we've been saying?

It doesn't matter what someone's holy book says -- what the "correct" interpretation is, or what "context" you may need to view it in. What matters is what its followers do.

Islam is not a religion of peace. Yes, not all Muslims are primitive, barbaric, misogynistic, violent people -- but enough are for the religion not to be peaceful.

[Sophus]

A religion cannot be peaceful, or warlike. To think otherwise is to make a category error. A religion is only a set of words, and because words must be interpreted, the qualities aroused have a source in the human as well as the text.

I agree and disagree. Some religions certainly have a more violent history than others. And their inception can include violence as well (Muhammad was a general). Still, it's difficult to label any one religion as violent or peaceful alone because most religions are so broad.

[JoeBobSmith]

 

[Whitney]

The vast majority of Muslims I've known -- and that is many; I lived for four years in Iran -- were peaceful people of good heart.  This horseshit stereotyping is unbecoming of freethinkers, and those indulging in it need to think more.

To point out that Islam is not an inherently peaceful religion is not the same as sterotyping.  I have known and do know many muslims who are very kind despite certain aspects of their holy text.

[Stevil]

It seems to me USA only get involved when they personally have something to gain, they are certainly not the world peace keepers that they make out they are.

considering all factors, we (usa) do a better job than(i believe) any other country could do

The country I belong to (NZ) has very few enemies. We are generally pretty tolerant of other countries, cultures, customs and are much more secular than USA. We do get bullied by the US at times with regards to trade and military operations but we stand up when we need to. USA have been pissed off at us for well over 20 years because we won't let anyone with nuclear weapons or nuclear powered vessels into our country. For this peaceful stance USA broke off the ANZUS treaty and have ensured that NZ do not participate in any international military training operations that occur. NZ are a free trade country, but America pretending to be the leaders of the free world are too worried about the impact a free trade agreement with NZ will have on them.

Anyway, this isn't an I hate America post. They do have lots of pluses going for them as well. I just disagree with your statement that US do a better job than any other country do or could do.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Uh, hello? Have you been listening to what we've been saying?

It doesn't matter what someone's holy book says -- what the "correct" interpretation is, or what "context" you may need to view it in. What matters is what its followers do.

Islam is not a religion of peace. Yes, not all Muslims are primitive, barbaric, misogynistic, violent people -- but enough are for the religion not to be peaceful.

Mentioning "interpretation" is not the same as weighing it appropriately.  That was my point.  Sorry you missed it.  To make it clear:

It is people who act.  A religion cannot be violent, or peaceful.  Only people, in this context, can act; holy books cannot.  Given that, interpretation is vital.

More clearly, there are perhaps one milion or so jihadis, out of 1.5 billion, with a B, Muslims.  Please explain how you can say this is not a peaceful religion, when well over 99% of its practitioners are not involved in religious violence.

So, to answer your question, yes, I have been listening.  I just think it's crap.  Feel free to correct me.