The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Peaceful Religion of Islam? Not.

Re: Off-Topic posts SPLIT from Peaceful Religion

Am I the only one who predicits a Hot Topics-CE&P merger in the next few months?
 
With the utmost of respect for Opinterph, who I believe is a true master of Moderation, I must actually agree with the other posters about this thread split issue.

Breaking the thread into pieces has just made a mess, not resolved any off-topic issue. For example, a comment I made in the original thread comparing terrorism and lightning strikes remains in place, but the follow-up comments have all traveled to the new thread and, now without context, simply make no sense.

In a long and unwieldy thread like this one, an injection of a little humor often serves to remind us all not to take things too seriously, and may even help posters to pause and refocus a little, rather than getting hot under the collar.

And I agree wholeheartedly with Nik above with regard to supporting threads by posting simple agreement. I believe an "I agree" post is absolutely relevant and justified in a public forum. Public discussion in any form relies on public participation, and recognition of agreement (or diagreement) is important in gauging the entire group's opinion. I for one enjoy seeing another poster declare public support for something I have written.
 
Let's get back on-topic, ie is Islam inherently peaceful? Not.

To that end, here is a link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

A madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Many of the Taliban were educated in Saudi-financed madrassas in Pakistan that teach Wahhabism, a particularly austere and rigid form of Islam which is rooted in Saudi Arabia. Around the world, Saudi wealth and charities contributed to an explosive growth of madrassas during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets. During that war (1979-1989), a new kind of madrassa emerged in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region -- not so much concerned about scholarship as making war on infidels. The enemy then was the Soviet Union, today it's America. Here are analyses of the madrassas from interviews with Vali Nasr, an authority on Islamic fundamentalism, and Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
 
Let's get back on-topic, ie is Islam inherently peaceful? Not.

]

Another interesting link. True, it is from a site called catholic.com, which makes it sort of suspect, there is much food for thought in the article:

http://www.catholic.com/library/endless_jihad.asp

This excerpt is only a tiny portion of the entire piece:

The Roots of Muslim Violence



It is simplistic to characterize any of the major religions as being strictly "of violence" or "of peace." As Solomon pointed out, "For everything there is a season; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Eccles. 3:1, 3, 8). That’s the way life works in a fallen world, and every religion capable of serving as the basis of a culture has recognized both the need for peace and the need for the use of force in certain circumstances.

Sects that are totally pacifistic have to rely on the good graces of others who are willing to use force to protect them, while sects that are totally given over to violence do not survive long since they kill themselves off or are broken up by their neighbors as a matter of self-protection. For a religion to serve as the basis of a culture, it must seek to preserve peace but also be willing to use force. All major religions tend toward this mean.

Yet some religions are far more prone to violence than others. Among the major religions, Islam is by far the most violent. This may be seen by comparing it to the religions most closely related to it, Judaism and Christianity.

Though belief in the true God goes back to the dawn of mankind, Judaism in its traditional form was founded by Moses, who, if evaluated politically, could be considered a warlord, leading the tribes of Israel toward the Promised Land and the conquest that would follow. The Old Testament contains numerous commands to use violence to protect and promote the nation of Israel. This potential for violence is reigned in, though, by the fact that Judaism is a religion for just one ethnic group confined to one territory.

Christianity, by contrast, is a universal religion, meant for all peoples in all countries. It has much greater breadth, and much lower intrinsic potential for violence. Its founder—Christ—was a martyr, who refused to fight to save his life. Though the New Testament acknowledges that the Old Testament revelation is from God, it does not contain new commands to use violence, as Christianity was not to be allied from its birth to a state in the way Judaism was.

The fact that in Christianity church and state are distinct means that as a religion Christianity has less potential for violence since it is not called upon to use force in the way a state is. This, coupled with Jesus’ own example and his "love thy enemy" teachings (e.g., Matt. 5:44), gives Christianity less innate potential for violence.

In contrast, Islam’s founder was a warlord who rose from nowhere and who by his death was the undisputed master of Arabia Peninsula. The holy book he produced is filled with commands to use violence in the service of its religion and nation. This potential for violence is similar to that possessed by Judaism except it is immensely augmented by the fact that Islam views itself, like Christianity, as a universal religion meant for all peoples in all countries. It also makes no distinction between church and state and is thus a political as well as religious ideology.

As a result, Islam has been willing to employ violence on a massive scale, as illustrated by the first century of its existence, when the Islamic Empire exploded outward and conquered much of the known world.

The attitude of Islam toward using violence against non-Muslims is clear. Regarding pagans, the Quran says, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful" (Surah 9:5). This amounts to giving pagans a convert-or-die choice.

Regarding violence against Jews and Christians, the Quran says, "Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued" (Surah 9:29). In other words, violence is to be used against Jews and Christians unless they are willing to pay a special tax and live in subjection to Muslims as second-class citizens. For them the choice is convert, die, or live in subjection.

The Quran also has stern words for Muslims who would be slow and reluctant to attack unbelievers: "Believers, why is it that when you are told: ‘March in the cause of God,’ you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? . . . If you do not go to war, he [God] will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men" (Surah 9:38-39).
 
Breaking the thread into pieces has just made a mess, not resolved any off-topic issue.

Very well. All that was really needed here was a voice of reason. Though my fellow mods have been rather slow to render an opinion, I value andysayhi’s judgment and have rejoined all the previous posts with the original thread. Perhaps it is best to leave well enough alone in situations like this, where nobody has complained.

Carry on. ..|
 
Very well. All that was really needed here was a voice of reason. Though my fellow mods have been rather slow to render an opinion, I value andysayhi’s judgment and have rejoined all the previous posts with the original thread.


I agree!



(Sorry, couldn't resist!) :twisted:
 
Back
Top