Islam

[hive_king]

Alright, taking a break from endless bickering about christianity.

Do you think Islam is an inherently peaceful religion thats been hijacked by extremists, or a fundamentally violent religion?

[Sibyl]

It has been inherently violent since its inception, when Mohammed was kicked out of Mecca for preaching, had more success in neighboring Medina, and went back with an army to convert the Meccans by force of arms. (It would have been better for the world (IMHO) if the heathen Meccans had simply executed instead of exiling him). It then spread by conquest as far west as Spain and as far east as India. Compare this to early Christianity, which didn't do armies for a thousand years, until the Crusades, in an attempt to take back geographically and politically some of the holy places from which the Islamics were excluding Christian pilgrims-- and the Crusades weren't for religious conversion, but for very special pieces of land.

[LilBee91]

Their doctrine and principles do not seem violent (though I have not read all of the Quran, so I could be very wrong). Even if from its beginning there was violence, it isn't rooted in it. Islam is full of extremists, and has been for most of its existence, but I think that at its basic level it is peaceful.

[luminousnerd]

I don't really know much about the religion or the history of it. It's something I'd love to learn about if I ever find time. However, I see the effects of Islam and over the past few centuries there is always war between factions of Islam.

However, I don't pass judgment on the religion itself. Just about every religion has caused deaths, wars. It is religion that is inherently violent. Not even that, really it's humans that are.

[Dr. Mobius]

Both/Neither. People have been using religions as a reason/excuse to be peaceful and/or violent for as long as the concept of religion has existed. That doesn't mean the religion caused them to act that way. Instead, they seem to just twist the words around to mean whatever they want/need them to mean to justify doing whatever it is they were going to do anyways.

[luminousnerd]

Both/Neither. People have been using religions as a reason/excuse to be peaceful and/or violent for as long as the concept of religion has existed. That doesn't mean the religion caused them to act that way. Instead, they seem to just twist the words around to mean whatever they want/need them to mean to justify doing whatever it is they were going to do anyways.

Yes, this is an excellent way to put it.

[jotabe]

I think that point is irrelevant... it's an easy way out. You can say exactly the same thing about any ideology.

Still that doesn't change the fact that some ideologies are inherently violent, and some are not inherently violent (even if violence is exerted in their name). This is a question about they philosophy such ideologies promote, not about their history.

What is my oppinion? Well there are two facts that weigh heavily on the matter:
-Islam was used by its founder as a tool of war.
-Islam is designed to be used as state religion (what nowadays we know it's very harmful): while it doesn't say anything about a specific government form, it "creates" its own legal system.

It can change? Certainly. Christianism was once modified to become state religion, and had to go through a process to undo that change. The same can happen to Islam. But such a change is now farther than ever to happen, because governments of muslim countries are being seized by the islamists (theocrats). Such change now could only happen in a country where muslims are not majority, or where one of those theocratic governments would fall (for example, Iran).

[Cooper]

Don't give up on the muslems with their sorry ideas on government. The Berlin wall came down much faster then any one expected. They just need someone to get there foot in the door and show them some love. Maybe help them to remember that other people are worth some love in return.

[BonitoDeMadrid]

The religion itself cannot be judged as neither inherently peaceful, nor inherently violent; as people said in this thread already, it is the people who create violence, not the religion.

However, I do believe that Islam has some religious intolerance in it, that is just not right, and needs to be changed.

[suminonA]

Maybe religion is inherently human.

A.

[Eddie Pinz]

And humans are inherently violent?

[suminonA]

I think humans are inherently egocentrical.

[BonitoDeMadrid]

I think humans are inherently egocentrical.

I would say that it's more like inherently evil, and, at the same time, inherently good, because there is no good without evil and vice versa, and again, it all depends on our POV.

But yes, humans are also inherently egocentrical. (Mother Teresa doesn't count, dwarves are not human).

[Boothby]

Islam is inherently violent. The K'uran (however it's spelled these days) talks a lot about violence, killing people who have left the religion, killing infidels, lying to infidels etc.

But, for that matter, Christianity and Judaism are also inherently violent. The Bible speaks of stoning children who talk back to their parents, stoning people who wear mixed fibers, giving prostitutes to the mob to be killed. Hell, Jesus himself says, ""I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" and talks of breaking up families, intentionally, in His name.

So, what's an atheist to do, surrounded by all these violent people?

[zeroguy]

So, what's an atheist to do, surrounded by all these violent people?

Egg them all on, apparently.

[BonitoDeMadrid]

So, what's an atheist to do, surrounded by all these violent people?

Remember that there are good sides to each religion, as well, like some of the ten commandments- teaching you to behave, to respect your parents, etc.

[Boothby]

The gentle Savior said, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Mt. 7:15-20).

Now, is the "tree" discussed above the Bible, the K'uran, or the other holy book of a particular religion? Is it the Priest, Rabbi or Imam? Or, is it the followers of that religion?

If the holy book contains what we currently believe (and how can we believe anything other than what we currently believe) to be strange or corrupt fruit, we are required to reject it. If the priest/rabbi/imam tells us to do things we know to be wrong, we must similarly reject them. And if the followers of the religion, for whatever reason (themselves, their book, their leaders) are along the path of corrupt fruit, are not they to be "cast into the fire"???

Or does the above passage only count for the "other" religion? You know, whatever religion is not yours.

[Dr. Mobius]

Or does the above passage only count for the "other" religion? You know, whatever religion is not yours.

Either way, wouldn't that be all of them in your case?

[Janus%TheDoorman]

I'm not terribly familiar with far eastern history, but is anyone familiar with any instances of holy wars among Hindus, Buddhists, Daoists, Confucianism, Shinto, etc.?

I certainly know of societies which subscribe to those religions going to war, but I'm not familiar with any examples of wars waged in their name.

[zeroguy]

I'm not terribly familiar with far eastern history, but is anyone familiar with any instances of holy wars among Hindus, Buddhists, Daoists, Confucianism, Shinto, etc.?

Depends on what you call "holy war". Shinto isn't really organized enough to have a war based on the religion itself, but it was certainly used as a tool to gain public support for Japan's actions leading up to and during WWII. And that's "State Shinto" anyway; not the original religion.

Taosim and Confucianism seems really doubtful; especially since the latter is hard to classify as a religion.

I don't know about any of the others.

[Boothby]

Dr. Mobe,

My point exactly.

[Slim]

The gentle Savior said, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Mt. 7:15-20).

Now, is the "tree" discussed above the Bible, the K'uran, or the other holy book of a particular religion? Is it the Priest, Rabbi or Imam? Or, is it the followers of that religion?

In my religion, we teach that one of the fruits of Joseph Smith was the Book of Mormon. So I would apply this to Islam the same way.

What were Mohammed's fruits? What did he bring forth? He gave us the Quran. (Is there even a correct way to spell it?) Anyone know where I can find a good translation? I don't even know what it is about.

[Eaquae Legit]

If you contact a nearby mosque they may be able to give you one. Around here at Ramadan the Muslim associations often have a "free Qu'ran" offer.

[zeroguy]

He gave us the Quran. (Is there even a correct way to spell it?)

There's so many ways to spell it I think it's a word that's actually hard to get wrong.

[Warmaker]

I think humans are inherently egocentrical.

Quite. A fictional wise man once speculated that evolution can't produce a species that hasn't a will to survive. Surviving requires caring more for the need of the self than for the need of the other. If that isn't the very definition of egotism, it's close.

The Q'uran isn't the only source of Islam, as the Bible isn't the only source of Christianity. Tradition and history play as much a role in the "soul" of a religion as texts and scripture. Atrocities have been committed in the name of Islam for centuries, that's quite a history and tradition.

[Eaquae Legit]

The Q'uran isn't the only source of Islam, as the Bible isn't the only source of Christianity. Tradition and history play as much a role in the "soul" of a religion as texts and scripture. Atrocities have been committed in the name of Islam for centuries, that's quite a history and tradition.

Eh, step back 600 years and you could say the same of Christianity. Indeed, it took us quite a few centuries more to settle down.

[Bean_wannabe]

Not being an expert, having not read the Q'uarn (but doesn't it also say this somewhere in the books?), doesn't the Q'uarn say that any form of non-retalitory fighting is 'bad' and the only way forward is peace?

[zeroguy]

Not being an expert, having not read the Q'uarn (but doesn't it also say this somewhere in the books?), doesn't the Q'uarn say that any form of non-retalitory fighting is 'bad' and the only way forward is peace?

There are some that say it says quite the opposite. I've heard some people claim that it tells all Muslims that any non-Muslims must either be converted or killed. These also tend to be the people whose opinions I don't hold in a very high regard, though.

[Rei]

To add a third hearsay to the list, I've heard that the Qu'ran itself encourages peace, and that the killing of those who won't be converted comes from writings outside of the Qu'ran. Unfortunately, I haven't a copy nor the time to read the book if I did have one to confirm this one way or the other.

[Warmaker]

The Q'uran isn't the only source of Islam, as the Bible isn't the only source of Christianity. Tradition and history play as much a role in the "soul" of a religion as texts and scripture. Atrocities have been committed in the name of Islam for centuries, that's quite a history and tradition.

Eh, step back 600 years and you could say the same of Christianity. Indeed, it took us quite a few centuries more to settle down.

Don't think for a second that I'm acquitting Christian history completely. But generally, Christianity has a far more peaceful past than Islam. And if you take into account denominations of the major philosophies. Islam has far less sects that have far more bloody histories.

[zeroguy]

Islam has far less sects

If you don't change this to 'fewer' I'm going to keep reading "Islam has far less sex" in my mind.

[eriador]

To add a third hearsay to the list, I've heard that the Qu'ran itself encourages peace, and that the killing of those who won't be converted comes from writings outside of the Qu'ran. Unfortunately, I haven't a copy nor the time to read the book if I did have one to confirm this one way or the other.

My perception was that the Qu'ran, just like the Bible, is extremely schizophrenic. In short, blanket statements are bullshit.

Anyway, before I vacate this thread entirely, I want to point out the irony of "Warmaker" whose location is "The Promised Land" to be calling any religion more violent than his own.

[Dr. Mobius]

Islam has far less sects

If you don't change this to 'fewer' I'm going to keep reading "Islam has far less sex" in my mind.

If he changes anything, it should be histories to periods.

[Eaquae Legit]

The Q'uran isn't the only source of Islam, as the Bible isn't the only source of Christianity. Tradition and history play as much a role in the "soul" of a religion as texts and scripture. Atrocities have been committed in the name of Islam for centuries, that's quite a history and tradition.

Eh, step back 600 years and you could say the same of Christianity. Indeed, it took us quite a few centuries more to settle down.

Don't think for a second that I'm acquitting Christian history completely. But generally, Christianity has a far more peaceful past than Islam. And if you take into account denominations of the major philosophies. Islam has far less sects that have far more bloody histories.

Hey, again, go back 600 years. No reformation, just a few pesky heretical sects that got stamped out periodically.

And seriously, you need to brush up on your medieval history if you think Christian nations weren't horrifically violent. Muslim nations nowadays look worse because they have access to modern technology. If you pretend that 100 years of religious history is like 1 year of human life, you can see both Christianity and Islam acting like a spoiled 14 year old.

[Dr. Mobius]

If you pretend that 100 years of religious history is like 1 year of human life, you can see both Christianity and Islam acting like a spoiled 14 year old.

That would explain this "2012 is the end of the world" crap.

Christianity is going to OD on something in the brownies at a frat party.

Judaism has been having a midlife crisis since the beginning of the 20th century as evidenced by its drastic weight loss. Upon hearing of the demise of its younger sibling, it slips into a black hole of despair.

Meanwhile, the 14 year old brat can't handle it any better and goes completely bat-s*** crazy.