Islam as religion of peace

[DinoDoc]

Interesting how muxec's prejudiced spiels bring you people out of the woodwork.

[yavoon]

all present religions by necessity need to claim to be peaceful. and I believe the ppl of those religions will interpret their religious texts in any necessary way to achieve that goal. there are peaceful things in the koran. but there are also violent things.

its sorta like the OT in that way.

[Sava]

Originally posted by CICSMaster


I'll take the USA's rule over Islam, ANY DAY.

DL DL DL

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by CICSMaster


I'll take the USA's rule over Islam, ANY DAY.

[Az]

He's a rather cunning DL, then, since he's been around for quite a while.

And yes, I agree with what he said.

[Bosh]

Sufi Islam is pretty peaceful overall but its pretty dead in most of the Arab world. Quite interesting overall, although Ibn al-Arabi makes my brain hurt. You Christians might even like them since they often use Jesus as a model more than Muhammad...

To Archaic: tehy killed foreigners not because rheir religion is different, but because they commited crimes against humanity and not only against other god.

Nothing excuses genocide.

[Jaguar]

I agree with him too, but it's very

like anyway.

[Sava]

IMO, Islam isn't a religion of peace or war. Again, it's in the eye of the beholder. Bush uses his religion (among other things) to justify this terrible war, but the Vatican, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Episcopal Church, the National Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, and the Council of Religious Leaders of Chicago (comprised of top Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders) all oppose it.

I think all of these people are better qualified and equipped than President Bush to decide whether this pre-emptive invasion is in accord with God's will or with any mainstream religious tenets.

Religion isn't bad, it's the *ssholes that hijack it for their own ends.

[yavoon]

I think religion has been hijacked for peace to a large extent too.

there are lotsa bad verses in the bible/koran that are all but completely ignored in favor of wutever good can be drawn.

so from an amoral standpoint there is no more hijacking for violence than there is hijacking for peace. its only that no1 minds the latter.

[Master Zen]

Considering the Christian faith's less than noble history I am surprised that this issue is even debated.

I do agree that many muslims tend to be more extremist. Yet I would not like to be ruled by those guys any more than I would like to be ruled by hard-core southern christian fundies.

And during the middle ages, islam was much more tolerant than anything in the west (inquisition ring a bell? crusades?), maybe the reverse is true these days but still, I don't follow any religion...

[Bosh]

islam was much more tolerant than anything in the west

Ya, was hard to get yourself killed for religious stuff in Islamic countries, especially before the Crusades. Plenty of blantantly heretical books were published legally and in Spain the Muslim authorities kept on begging the Christian leaders to keep their followers who wanted to be mayrtered from standing in front of Mosques and insulting Muhammad at the top of their lungs since doing that was about the only religion-related things the Muslims would kill you for

[Az]

I think religion has been hijacked for peace to a large extent too.

[Worthingtons]

In the past Christianity was a religion of War, sometimes warring with themselves. In the Present it is now Islam.
At the end of the day people will bend over backwards to defend Moslem's and thier religion, especially the left. There's some good bad, there's some good, but more and more are turning towards the extremist interpretations of thier Religion, which is a dangerous thing, and the left needs to stop supporting this.

On a final note, USA has no history, and probably no desire to 'take over the world'. They are the World's policemen and are simply the one's with the gut's to stand up to brutal dictators. God bless the USA

[The Mad Monk]

Less than noble compared to what, Zen?

[Sava]

I don't think anyone living today is qualified enough to give an accurate portrayal of the tolerance level of Islam a thousand years ago.

[Az]

you don't have the same doubts about christianity do you?

[Sava]

Nah, there's enough historical record to judge how tolerant Christianity was/is... enough bodies, anyhow.

[Az]

I love your double standards.

[Sava]

Perhaps you misunderstood.

I'm only saying that there perhaps is not enough credible evidence to give an accurate description on whether Islam was tolerant or not a thousand years ago. I tend to think it wasn't so tolerant. But that's beside the point.

But, I think that there is enough evidence to say that Christianity wasn't tolerant during the same period.

That's all. Not much of a double standard.

[Bosh]

I'm only saying that there perhaps is not enough credible evidence to give an accurate description on whether Islam was tolerant or not a thousand years ago.

Why not? There's plenty of written records from Muslim-ruled countries at that time, more than there are from Christian-ruled countries that existed at the time. And all them agree that you had to do something very very extreme to lose your head (for example al-Hallaj shouting "I am the truth," i.e. God). Hell, the Muslims HAD to be tolerant, non-tolerant governments have a hard time functioning so well for so long when so much of their population was a different religion (for example Egypt was majority Christian until as late as the Crusades). There aren't even any books dedicated to debunking Christianity in the Mid-east until the Crusades.

[Az]

Boshko is right.

"... but then, from the east, a mongol nomadic warrior appeared."

[Sava]

It's quiet possible, and very likely, that you are right Boshko because I'm generally ignorant of the history of Islam.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Less than noble compared to what, Zen?

I don't remember us non-believers starting an inquisition...

[Az]

He can always take the Stalin/Mao/Hitler argument, zen.

[Master Zen]

As for tolerance, jews and christians were allowed to live in the Ottoman Empire without fear of discrimination. AFAIK they were not allowd to publically practice it or attempt to convert others but other than that they were not persecuted.

At the same time people were being burned at the stake just a few hundrends of miles west...

[Bosh]

"... but then, from the east, a mongol nomadic warrior appeared."

Who weren't Islamic until later. Hell, the first time the Mongols whipped through the area they treated the Christians better than the Moslems (ie didn't kill them quite so often), because of the influence of Sorghaghtani Beki who was Ghenghis' daughter-in-law and a Nestorian Christian.

[Az]

Actually, what I meant was that they ****ed the muslims doggy-style, and left their civilization in Afghanistan-like shape. Which continues to this very day.

[Sirotnikov]

Shto znachit one pushystoya? Moyo puzo toje pyshitoye. Devki dolzhni bit gladkie. ne tak? Ya dumoyu ya tebya ne pravilno ponyal. Eto russki slang?

[Az]

LOLROFL

[Sirotnikov]

As for tolerance, jews and christians were allowed to live in the Ottoman Empire without fear of discrimination. AFAIK they were not allowd to publically practice it or attempt to convert others but other than that they were not persecuted.

incorrect.
that depended more of the local leader.

but jews and christians had to pay special taxes and iirc had less rights. that's discrimination for you.