If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The "Islam Is Peace" campaign...
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But by the time serious negotiations took place they did recognise the right of the people to decide Northern Ireland's status and that any change would only be with the consent of the majority and not by violence.
The negotiations in the 70's failed because the IRA were demanding what wasn't achievable. The British Government's basic position never changed, the IRA's did. Its an unpalatable fact to some that the IRA's campaign was beaten not by being nice, but by killing and jailing them until they came to the table and agreed that military means had failed and that a united Ireland would come about by political means
Highlighting the barbarism and immorality prevalent in the religious texts of the major religions is far from a sophomoric exercise. Understanding the founding theory and ideology of an organisation to whose followers, either literally or interpretively, follow, is key to admonishing apologists for such regimes. To simply state 'they can't be pacified' suggests either a) a comprehensive understanding of their theology - which I suggest must, in part at least, come from reading and understanding their religious manuals - or b) complete ignorance of the topic.
The Muslim Brotherhood's brand of Sunni Islam does. Al Qaeda is built on that.
Flashman answered that better than I would have.
We can and should understand their ideology so that we can take the right approach to fighting it - that's my point. But I do think it's pointless to get into a tit-for-tat about whose religion is more peaceful/enlightened etc: the Christian and Atheist bring out their quotes from the Quran to make their point, the Muslim retaliates with his quotes from the Bible and points to secularist mass murderers like Che, Hitler, Mao and Stalin and everybody goes home with their views completely unchanged believing that they won the argument.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2198526,00.html
David Trimble on the peace process and the importance of learning the right lessons
There is only ONE Quran, and there was only ONE 'prophet' Muhammad.
Stop referring to different 'sects'. The common denominator of all of these sects is the teachings of the Quran and Muhammad... that THAT is what we should be concentrating on.
Remember, we are discussing whether the teachings of ISLAM are peaceful.
The teachings of Islam can be found in the Quran and the collections of the sayings of Muhammad (Hadith).
This 'IslamIsPeace' campaign which is full of lies claims that Islam is a peaceful religion... when it clearly is not.
And can we please please PLEASE stop bringing the IRA or Christianity or any other red-herring into this discussion.
Why does the tu-quoque logical fallacy ALWAYS crop up in any discussion about Islam?
They come in all different personalities, just like any other human beings.
There are good ones, there are bad ones... there are peaceful ones, there are not-so-peaceful ones... there are honest and hardworking ones... there are not-so-honest and hard working ones......
I grew up as a 'Muslim' and I like to think that I was a very well behaved and honest person too (and still am I hope).
Of course it's true that the vast majority of 'Muslims' are peaceful human beings who just want to get on with their life...
... but these peaceful Muslims are peaceful in spite of the teachings of Islam.
The teachings of Islam are certainly NOT peaceful, and neither was Muhammad... and the sooner the West wakes up and realises this the better.
What makes you an authority on Islam, to say that Islam is "a religion of hate, of terror and of war." Other religions are not red herrings. They are markers for comparison. Nothing in this world stands alone. Is religion, in general, violent? Yes, sometimes. But often not. All religions preach hate in some ways. And they all preach peace. It is about the way in which they are interpreted.
If there is only 'one' Islam, why are there many different people who interpret it in many different ways? Every religion evolves and citing passages from scripture doesn't help.
Do you deny that the vast, majority of Muslims and subscribers to the Muslim faith are completely peaceful? It appears to me that your agenda is to attack the religion of Islam and paint it as a religion of war, when in reality that is only interpretation of it (as there are different interpretations of every religion).
As I mentioned, the authority isn't me, or you.... the authority is the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad.
You can read them and all will be clear.
You keep saying that there are different ways of 'interpreting' religions.
Tell me ShyBoy... how many different ways are there of 'interpreting' this teaching of Muhammad?....
'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260
Because of this teaching, it is extremely difficult for people like me to openly declare my apostasy. Infact I still have to pretend to be a Muslim infront of my family.
And I'm sure we all know that the punishment for apostasy is death according to the teachings of Islam... and this punishment is enforced in several Islamic countries.
Infact, every single former Muslim that I can think of who has openly declared their apostasy has got death threats hanging over their heads.
eg:
Salman Rushdie
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ibn Warraq
Taslima Nasrin
Ehsan Jami
Maryam Namazie
Wafa Sultan
Are the BNP racist? Or is it merely peoples 'interpretation' of the BNP which makes them racist?
For Gods sakes this "interpretation" excuse is so lame and annoying!
The point is that you would legitimately attacking the manifesto of the organisation, and the only people who may get offended are those people who choose to associate with such a manifesto. If I criticise Islam, it's not my fault if someone gets offended, just because they happen to call themselves a muslim. I wasn't criticising that individual, I was criticising a set of ideas, just like I would with the BNP. But a BNP supporter can agree with me, and say that they don't agree with that aspect of the manifesto, and attempt to change it. A religious person cannot do this, because their book is "the word of God" so they attempt to sugar-coat it, water it down, say it's not meant to be taken literally, say that it's open to interpretation, and a whole host of other rather poor excuses.
The majority of good muslims or Christians are good not because they've really thought about particular violent of morally suspect passages and interpreted them in the modern world (name me a single Christian who's studied the bible extensively or even read it from cover to cover - they're certainly the extreme minority), they're good because thankfully the rational, innately moral part of their brain is far more powerful than the irrational part.
I thought he was very careful not to say that, and to actually stress the reverse. But he said that they are good people in spite of Islam, not because of it.
I am discussing the teachings of Islam.
I am not discussing the human beings who were born into this religion who come in all different personalities.
Please read my previous posts in which I clearly stated that the vast majority of 'Muslims' are peaceful human beings.... but they are largely peaceful in spite of Islam.
My whole family call themselve 'Muslims'.... but none of them have ever read that Quran at all (except in arabic, which they don't even understand).
Please understand.... we were merely born into this religion.
We grew up with this 'Muslim' tag attached to us.
tbh, there's hardly anything 'Islamic' about our behaviour at all.
Our belief in Islam goes as far as believing in God... praying here and there... and fasting during ramadhan.
But Islam is MUCH more than that.
Or are his family the only ones.
I have several muslims in my close family and theyre about as far removed from terrorism and violence as I am (which is quite far)
nazi-ism in it's basic tenants was evil
i don't think islam is violent as per such, it can be interpreted in many ways and individual quotes from religious books don't suit things as a lot contradict eachother and the interpretation is either in contextual translation or priority of beliefs - PERSONALLY i don't like the attitude that comes with the teachings which is very similar to eye for an eye tooth for a tooth in the old testament, i'd associate myself more with a christian attitude (in which the new testament denounces the eye for an eye statement) even if i don't believe in god or jesus which is that you treat people as you wish to be treated even if they don't treat you the same and you love all people no matter how bloody stupid they may be
^ Thank you. I couldn't have put it better myself, excellent post.
My family (who are all Muslims) are far removed from terrorism and violence too.
But Islam is still an intolerant religion.
If you still don't get it by now, then I give up.
Please read I'm With Stupid's post... he summed it all up very nicely.
Is it not exactly the same principle? The fact remains that many people are Muslim and live peaceful lives happily without feeling compelled to take part in a Jihad etc.
There isn't a single teaching in Islam which teaches you to respect other peoples beliefs or to treat people of other religions equally.
On the other hand, I can show dozens and dozens and dozens of verses from the Quran which show intolerence towards 'disbelievers', and verses which clearly mandate warfare towards disbelievers.
The Quran makes it clear that in an Islamic state... non-Muslims must feel subdued and they have to pay a special tax.
The punishment for a Muslim who chooses to renounce his faith is death. There is no uncertainty about this.
It is extremely relevent. It is the literal word of God.
^ Yes that is true, and we should be thankful for this.
But it doesn't change the fact that the teachings of Islam are NOT peaceful, and they're NOT tolerant.
Sufism is a relatively tame branch of Islam isn't it?
so youre saying the millions of well meaning people out there who do noone any harm who say they're muslim, are bad muslims?
it doesnt make them violent....
and as i stated before it depends on translation..... and then you have to interpret that
But any thing that Sufi's do which goes against the teachings of the Quran or Muhammad will obviously be frowned upon by the 'true' Muslims who are following the authentic scriptures.
A bad Muslim is one who goes against the teachings of the Quran and Muhammad.
^ In that case, Nazi's aren't evil either.
It all depends on how you translate and interpret Mein kampf/Hitler.
Nick Griffin isn't racist either. It all depends on how you 'interpret' him.
:rolleyes:
Ok seriously I'm not trying to be funny, but please we can't hide behind the "interpretation" excuse forever.
The message of the Quran and Muhammad is there for everyone to read for themselves.
To be fair you're not making a lot of sense here. Obviously in the past you've posted in the same way - always stressing an extreme view of Islam as inherently violent because of it's scripture yet at the same time rejecting comparison with equally violent messages from other religions. Yet even here you make it clear there are other views of Islam.
What you often sound like is a fundamentalist whose rejected fundamentalist teachings, as opposed to someone taking a rational view of the religion you're describing or the millions of people who follow it. Naturally you'll find a lot of support for the view that Islam is violent, but that's a sad reflection of ignorance and not a sign of truth.
I find it very hard to see an inherently identical view of Islam when comparing Malcom X (pre and post disagreement with the Nation of Islam), Faraday, Jinnah, the Taleban, a refugee during the Yugoslavian war about to be exectued for being Muslim or Amir Khan
It seems that what you want to suggest is that their is only one possible interpretation of Islam, and that is violent. Well I'm sorry, that isn't the view of Muslim's I know or of any Muslim leaders I've met. So it sounds more like you've been tought a very harsh fundamentalist view of a religion which you see as the only way to view Islam. I just don't believe it's the same for everyone else.
Probably not, but not any more than the other main religions.
Now, do you condemn all religions as promoters of violence, or do you prefer to single out Islam?
Just like the other main religions, it has passages where it advocates peace and tolerance and passages where it advocates hatred, violence and bigotry.
As it happens I'm fairly anti-religious and would describe the day when all religions are extinct from the world as the happiest ever in human history, but I find the damning of Islam as a violent religion rather comical, seeing as it is exactly as violent as the other two big religions.
Yes, Islam is violent. ALL religions are violent. I'd gladly see the back of the lot of them but it is wrong to single out one of them while embracing the others, because they are every single bit as bad.
I think the definition of "Islam" needs to be discussed here. To me Islam isn't the various muslim communities, it isn't muslim leaders, it is simply the set of teaching laid out in the Koran. When I criticise Islam, that is what I criticise, and I make damn sure that I don't criticise muslims or specific muslim communities. This seperation is present in every other field of discussion. I can criticise communism without insulting the entire communist community. I can criticise conservative ideals, without members of the Conservative party feeling offended.
But anyway, let's ignore the nature of the word Islam for a second (I've clearly given my definition which applies to everything I've written on this thread), would it be insensitive, ignorant or offensive of me to say that the Koran is a sick book? (Hypothetical question btw, because it would be ignorant of me to say such a thing, since I have little knowledge of it). Does it make a difference whether I'm criticising "Islam" or the Koran? Would you (who has presumably not read it cover to cover), be willing to condemn me for doing so merely on the basis that the majority of the people (most've whom also haven't read it cover to cover) are nice people? Because criticising the text of the Koran is what lead to the killing of Theo van Gogh.
My entire point throughout this thread is that anyone should be free to criticise a set of ideas, without it being assumed that they are criticising everyone who labels themselves as believers in those ideas. And anyone who claims to be a moderate person should absolutely support their right to do that, even if they belong to a group who believes in the ideas being criticised.