Is Islam a religion of Peace? (page 2)

Perry

all religions....promulgated by destruction

Onacruse,

Since the New Testament is the authority and standard to Christianity and contains no counsel to "promulgate" the gospel by "destruction"; can you elaborate on your statement?

bebu

I've read the Quran... and it is a jungle.

It also really becomes rather dull after a while. The stories in the Quran are less than inspiring... it's hard to stay awake (same effect the Book of Mormon has on me, btw). The last 1/4 of the book I didn't read, and I don't think I missed anything important...

I think it is in the Hadiths, though, that terrorists find their real call for action. (These are biographies of Mohammed--his words and actions.) Mohammed spent a great deal of time, especially in his last years, bringing his religion at the edge of his sword. Terrorists reason, why not be like Mohammed, the greatest prophet, if I want to do more to guarantee my place in paradise?

The Muslims who DO love peace find their reasons in writings that came earlier in Mohammed's life, when he was outnumbered and had to 'get along' till his own followers grew stronger. They point out that the Quran itself (which are considered God's exact commands) does NOT command the things Mohammed did. The allowance for killing infidels means to heathens who had no connection to the Biblical faith. Jews and Christians are to be 2nd class citizens with fewer rights (higher taxes, no gov't jobs, aren't reliable witnesses in court, etc.). And all Muslim apostates are to be killed.

In truth, Mohammed and his followers killed quite a few more people than the Quran permitted.

bebu

SixofNine

:Nobody wants to just come out and tell Moslems that their religion is barbaric.

And you think they'd go "oh, wow, I see what you mean, therefore Allah is not God anymore; guess I'll be non-religious now", if they were just told that "their religion is barbaric"? Seems to me that the problems run a little deeper than parsing scriptures. And if the only response the "christians" bring is tit-for-tat, then really, both groups of people are exactly as willing to be barbaric.

One could debate the religous stuff all day, but miss out on getting a clear picture of what terrorism is about. The biggest terrorist of them all, Osama bin Laden, has very specific grievances with the USA, and those grievances are most certainly not particularly religious. The religion of Islam w/o doubt gives sustenance to the person who feels wronged and is willing to die and kill to right his/her percieved wrongs, but then again, so does the Christian religion.

The really sadly ironic thing is that most Americans will agree that there is merit to Osama bin Laden's grievances against the US.... just so long as they are not told that it is OBL stating the grievance.

JamesThomas

Is any religion a religion of peace?

They may say they are, however by their very nature they separate rather than unite.

Generally religion is a set of beliefs centered around a tiny deity (a Most High) who is known to kill or somehow punish those who do not accept, support and join with him. When we equate such behavior with holiness and righteousness, then is it wise to expect peace?

j

wednesday

I had a close friend from Iran and he told me that although he belived in allah, he did not associate with the islam religion b/c it was too violent. That comes from the horses mouth.

Country_Woman

Nobody wants to just come out and tell Moslems that their religion is barbaric.

Not true: a year ago a Dutch politicus announced this in the Netherlands: "

The Islam is a retarded / barbaric religion"

He was the first Dutch politicus to be killed for his sayings, his name was Pim Fortuyn.

Just a few weeks ago the second one was killed for his blunt words against the Islam: Theo van Gogh.

To come out and tell Moslems that their religion is barbaric, is obviously very dangerous.

onacruse

Hello Perry! How ya doin'? Been a while since we chatted.

Since the New Testament is the authority and standard to Christianity and contains no counsel to "promulgate" the gospel by "destruction"; can you elaborate on your statement?

Consider the eschatological descriptions contained in the Gospels, supposedly quoting Jesus' own predictions about the destruction of the vast majority of mankind, and the beloved apostle John's follow-up several decades later, with even more graphic depictions of the same. And the apostle Paul's development and promulgation of centrally organized and punitive administrative processes.

While there is not, to my knowledge, any overt recommendation in the NT for Christians to slaughter non-Christians, I do think it remains a matter of historical fact that these developments, and the interpretations of these NT passages, led quite directly to a world-impacting religion that behaved (and behaves) in much the same manner as Islam. Not even considering the gross abuses and destruction of humanity that have been carried out over the last 2 millenia in the name of Christianity: why do we have Christian chaplains in the US Armed services? Why do we have such a rip-tide of support in the US for (ultra)-conservative (read fundamentalist Christian) inhibitions on civil rights and scientific advances?

I submit that this is a direct result of the non-verbal message that the supposedly peaceful message of the NT has produced.

Wonderful words can hide subtle motives.

Respectfully.

Narkissos

As far as sacred texts are concerned, I believe the Quran is considerably less violent than the Hebrew Bible (OT), although more violent than the New Testament.

The New Testament is free from direct incitation to violence, but many parts of it retain the notion of a violent God who will eventually exert vengeance on behalf of the believer. Because of this emphasis on eschatology, it is also devoid of any political clue on how to organise and rule a society, leaving the (initially Roman) civil authority completely free to exercise violence as it wishes. When the Christian became rulers they found no help in their own texts on how to cope with this issue in this position. The result being that the Christian history as a whole, from Constantin to Bush via the crusades and the nuclear bomb, is certainly the most violent of all.

Perry

Man thanks for straightening me out guys! Boy was I about to be duped again. Without the help from others I would have just taken the total absence of acts of violence by Christians in the NT as proof of a peaceful religion. I now understand that it is the unwritten, unspoken evil in the NT that I was missing.

Likewise, I would have assumed the 164 commands in the Koran to kill innocent people was proof of an evil religion. I can now see they are "exactly" the same thing.

Praise Allah

Praise Buddah

Shalom

Peace be with you.

Just covering all my bases here. Kool-Aid anyone?

bebu

When the Christian became rulers they found no help in their own texts on how to cope with this issue in this position. The result being that the Christian history as a whole, from Constantin to Bush via the crusades and the nuclear bomb, is certainly the most violent of all....

...except for communist atheism, which has no 'god' at all to answer to for its terrorisms of the past century the world over: Tens of millions killed...

now THAT's a record. (Shudder.)

bebu

Is Islam a religion of Peace?

Share this