Peaceful Religion of Islam? Not.

[Txgoodoldboy]

I watched a DVD called, Islam: What the West Needs to Know. I rented it from Netflix. People might want to check it out. Its view is the opposite of a peaceful religion.

Islam: What the West Needs to Know is a documentary film produced by Quixotic Media. According to the producers, the film is an examination of Islam and its violence towards the non-muslims. The critics of the film describe it as being inaccurate, simplistic and biased and even propagandist against Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=3593188

 

[Wajdan]

I am a muslim - though not very practising one - but I must say that some of you guys have posted really derogatory comments against muslims. There is for sure extremism factor in some muslim countries but out of 1.5 billion muslims, hardly 1% are extremists.

The irony of the situation is that people start blaming Islam without proper research. Christianity and Judaism and non-monothestic religions like Hinduism also have a history of violence. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all christains and so was Milošević. All peace-loving people also know the atrocities of jews against muslims. Hindus have murdered hundreds of thousands of muslims and christians in India since 1947.

So we should term all these religions extremist? I guess you all need some lessons of history - and unbiased ones - before making any comments.

 

[Wajdan]

Oh and not to mention the centuries old blood bath between catholics and protestans.....

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Limp and greasy.

Like this thread?

 

[Kulindahr]

Just like the confederate states of America and past slavery... People live in the dark and thats why so much racism exists and hatred towards groups of people.

Dude, it's you who have been simple-minded with simple explanations on those topics: to you, everything is one way, there aren't any complexities, it's all cut and dried.

Well, it isn't, and it isn't here, eith.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Is that "Sponsors" link supposed to be there? In between posts 130-131.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuindahr, I'm very dubious of anything you post on this subject, being as you're a god-botherer yourself. You have an automatic predisposition to promote your particular brand of imaginary friend as the superior.

Maybe if you paid more attention on JUB, you'd realize that's just your prejudice: I arrived at Christianity because all the other contenders fell far short -- like Islam, which has a holy book that commands slaughter.

And the claim that christianity preaches peace is an outright lie. Maybe your interpretation, but that interpretation is at the expense of the catalogue of depravity that has been used to sanction some of the most disgusting episodes in human history.

Sorry, but you're wrong; your claim there is the lie.

Find me a place where Jesus said, "Go slaughter people", and I'll concede you have a point.

 

[falconfan]

Oh for God's sake people...

I'm replying to the thread title not the individual arguments because well what's the point. I just saw the title which was of course just ignorant and inflammatory enough to pull me into one of these threads against my better judgment.

I'm not back reading 3 pages to get to the minutia of the individual arguments but what it boils down to is this, the same thing it's always boiled down to....

Some people just fucking suck. Period. Some people are just fucking bastards who do horrible things. There are people of all creeds, races, or nationalities that suck. All of the major modern religions encourage peace and compassion. There are members of all of them that twist the tenants of their 'faith' to serve their own personal hatred, rage, or anger. You can't take that as a characterization of the faith as a whole.

Because REALLY do we want to play this game?

Because we can point to the massive child molestation scandals in the Catholic church, the Spanish Inquisition (even though no one ever expects it), and the Crusades to pin it all on the Catholics

Or if aiming at Protestants is more to your liking well then there's the Klu Klux Klan, the Salem Witch Trials and miscellaneous wars.

If you'd like to say whites are innately violent well then you can take everything above and add to that the slave trade and colonization of the new world among other things...

My point being... do we REALLY want to play this game? Really? No one is innately violent or evil and if you try to keep a score card throughout history well the losers are more likely to be White Christian men than anyone else.

Trying to draw a direct parallel between any one person or conflict and an entire religion is just an ignorant oversimplification.

 

[Kulindahr]

Can't the same be said of the Quran which is as debated as the bible? I know plenty of Muslims who don't agree with extremism, isn't it possible they're overlooking the outrageous verses the same way Chrisians overlook the bible's outrageous verses?

You post on a website where men discuss sexually abusing other men who are asleep, does that criminalize you by default? The "Quran" argument seems based on the notion that to be a Muslim you HAVE to follow the book verbatim.

No, the same can't be said of the Quran, because by design it comes very close to being a recipe book: everything in it is on equal footing, since it all came from the mouth of the Prophet,
That's not true in the Bible, even in the Old Testament, where one covenant superseded another, where former things were explained by later prophets, slowly urging the Hebrews/Israelites toward greater understanding of mercy and faithfulness. Then in the New Testament, it's all boiled down to love -- love your neighbor as yourself, treat others as you want to be treated, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you; those are the things that the Bible teaches, and the others are history, to be looked at and understood as the steps toward something greater which they are (as Paul so elegantly illustrates in a couple of places).

Real Christians don't overlook the Bible's outrageous verses, they just understand that the Old is old, and has been superseded by the New. Picking selected verses out of the Old Testament means absolutely nothing; that's the Fred Phelps school of interpretation, and it's as foolish in the mouths of gays as it is in his -- rather, more foolish, because we object when he does it to us (though usually the objections are ignorant, with no more understanding of the Bible than he has).

The Quran argument is about the Quran and what that means about the religion of Islam; it has nothing to do with particular Muslims. I haven't said anything about Muslims in general, nor even any particular Muslims except those illustrated in the movie Fitna.

This is just a matter of clear thinking. When I'm accused here of bashing Muslims, it's as though I'd pointed out an error in an electrician's handbook -- and on that basis it's concluded that I'm bashing "all electricians", when in fact I hadn't even said a word about electricians. With regard to this thread, which is about the Muslim religion, not about Muslims, I could care less if there even are any Muslims, really; my interest is in the book, and whether it shows that Islam is a peaceful religion.

And what it shows is that it is not.

 

[naked gent]

I arrived at Christianity because all the other contenders fell far short -- like Islam, which has a holy book that commands slaughter.

Kul if you think christianity is a religion of peace and love then its obvious you never went to catholic school.

Find me a place where Jesus said, "Go slaughter people", and I'll concede you have a point.

He never did, but unlike you he held people responsible for their actions quite aside from what their beliefs might be.

If you believe in the teachings of Christ then condemning the Catholic Church for deeds done in HIS name should be easy for you but if you prefer the institution to the man then you're on solid ground.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

No, the same can't be said of the Quran, because by design it comes very close to being a recipe book:

How many PRACTICING Muslims accept the idealogies you're speaking of? What does it matter if the book teaches killing if people don't follow it verbatim?

With regard to this thread, which is about the Muslim religion, not about Muslims

Discussing actual Muslims would make more sense since 0.1% of the posters here would pass even a basic test of understanding of the Quran. If we're discussing the religion, we're discussing a book that we collectively couldn't write two paragraphs about?

my interest is in the book, and whether it shows that Islam is a peaceful religion.

The book isn't an indicator of practice, as with Christianity, what the book says and what people get out of it are two different things.

 

[falconfan]

Find me a place where Jesus said, "Go slaughter people", and I'll concede you have a point.

Why do that when it's so much easier to find the part where it says

"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye , and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

How can one offer a justification for any argument against others when you claim to follow a man who preaches pacifism and non-judgment? How can you claim to follow a man who says "do not resist" when you actively do resist? Unless of course you choose to be a hypocrite because that's the only way these things can both be true.

Did you miss the memo? Aren't you suppose to let yourself be crucified while speaking words of forgiveness rather than sitting at your computer shouting words of accusation?

I suggest you try some I messages.

 

[HenryReardon]

So what's the solution? Round 'em up and stick 'em in a camp?

.

There is no "solution." However, we need to be aware of what's happening, and prepared to resist when out local, state, and federal governments attempt to grant special privileges to these people - as is being done in Europe and the UK. It might just slow things down a bit.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

However, we need to be aware of what's happening

Believe it or not there are more pressing issues than Muslim terrorism. While you're hell-bent on worrying about them, Americans are killing themselves at a MUCH higher rate. Cops seem to have a love affair for killing unarmed men. We're all aware that terrorism exists, we're just not as fanatical about it.

and prepared to resist when out local, state, and federal governments attempt to grant special privileges to these people

Special priveleges such as? Does Osama get 20% off Red Lobster dinners? What priveleges are going to be given to murderers?

 

[falconfan]

Special priveleges such as? Does Osama get 20% off Red Lobster dinners? What priveleges are going to be given to murderers?

Maybe he means special privileges like the right to a trial by ones peers, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments, freedom from fear of being tortured, and the right to habeas corpus.

God can you believe Obama wants to give people such silly rights... I mean it's as if they think that all people are created equal or innocent until proven guilty or some shit. God I wish us normal folks could get those privileges.

 

[falconfan]

falconfan, I'm starting to really crush on you. You're proving to be the voice of reason in many threads.

Why thank you dear. I'm quite fond of you myself. In fact I can't remember if I've ever disagreed with you in a thread.

 

[TX-Beau]

How can one offer a justification for any argument against others when you claim to follow a man who preaches pacifism and non-judgment?...

I’m going to defend Kuli here for a second, because however much I might disagree with him on a subject, he does in fact put thought into what he’s saying and isn’t just repeating something he heard on Fox news. This means if you tone down the rhetoric he will in fact listen to you, though you may never come to agreement; it still leaves room for discussion, and who knows, if you talk to him reasonably, you might just change his mind. But if you blanket dismiss him, I can’t see why he’d listen, I wouldn’t.

There are others in here who deserve the pile on, but he's not one of them.

There’s always a difference between the cannon and doctrine of a religion, and it’s practice. Very few people have the time, resources, or inclination to study everything about a religion; the problems occur when someone takes a people’s cursory knowledge of religion, and twists it to personal/political goals that have nothing to do with the actual religion itself. Witness the politics of the last administration for an example of how this is done in America.

Any discussion of the subject requires that you define who you’re talking about, the clergy, the faithful, or the demagogues. They are different things, with different goals.

 

[TX-Beau]

Another pointlessness is gamesmanship on whose religion has the most violent history, we don't live in the WRE, or in Catholic Spain, or the Ottoman empire, we have a situation on the ground, back here in reality, and it isn't going to be solved by recrimination about how many protestants were slaughtered by how many Catholics.

 

[HenryReardon]

What is this obsessive fear you seem to have of what you refer to as "brown" people. For the record, I've shared my bed with a very brown-skinned native of Puerto Rico for nearly fourteen years. There's nothing to fear. Perhaps you need to re-examine your own belief-system, such as it is.

 

[falconfan]

I’m going to defend Kuli here for a second, because however much I might disagree with him on a subject, he does in fact put thought into what he’s saying and isn’t just repeating something he heard on Fox news. This means if you tone down the rhetoric he will in fact listen to you, though you may never come to agreement; it still leaves room for discussion, and who knows, if you talk to him reasonably, you might just change his mind. But if you blanket dismiss him, I can’t see why he’d listen, I wouldn’t.

There are others in here who deserve the pile on, but he's not one of them.

Well your attitude is admirable if you manage to maintain it after frequenting this board please tell me how. I don't know how regularly you check things out here I use to come on a fairly regular basis until I felt like I was slamming my head into a wall with such a high frequency that I more or less stayed to the Entertainment forum. I've seen and participated in enough threads in my time here however to know that while Kul will be more flexible in his arguing style he's not ever going to change his mind about things. When you see shifting it's not in an attempt to actually consider new opinions or facts or evidence it's in an attempt to manuever to a new justification that lets him maintain his position on sturdier ground. I would do it all the time when I formally debated so it's fairly easy to recognize. But like I said I've seen enough of these things where I can tell this is not a forum for people who want to discuss but for people who want to preach (often hate) and that's the primary reason why I no longer frequent it. But now and then, like now, from the main page I see a thread that is just so blatantly bigotted that I can't help but reply.




There’s always a difference between the cannon and doctrine of a religion, and it’s practice. Very few people have the time, resources, or inclination to study everything about a religion; the problems occur when someone takes a people’s cursory knowledge of religion, and twists it to personal/political goals that have nothing to do with the actual religion itself. Witness the politics of the last administration for an example of how this is done in America.

Any discussion of the subject requires that you define who you’re talking about, the clergy, the faithful, or the demagogues. They are different things, with different goals.[/quote]