10 Reason Why Islam Isn't a Religion of Peace

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]zarrs wrote:
…
[/quote]

Thanks for sharing a thoughtful point of view. From where I stand however, it’s not simply what one would call an evolution. No sir. The criminal acts of barbarism some “Muslims” are doing are not perpetrated in the name of the community. In fact, every Muslim analog of the Church has actively condemned those rascals - fatwas in hand. So, no, a comparison to the Holy Crusades is flawed.

What one needs to look at when analyzing such situations, is the socio-economic fabric. For example, until one fully accepts that the Palestinians are up in arms for a nationalist cause, the amalgam with Islam shall persist. Some idiots, even go as far as show the current situation in Muslim countries as proof that Islam is the root cause of all evil (or something along those lines). So much for Cartesian thinking!

The sad thing is that those idiots seem to be doing very well for themselves. I often hear people describe the so-called courage of the ones that stand up to denounce Islam. What they might not realize, is that everyone and his sister want in on that gravy train. The Muslims…well, you can guess what train they’ll be boarding. Islamophobia has become quite fashionable.

I agree with you when you say that there’s no immediate solution to the problem. What I see implemented is actually doing nothing but empower the extremists. The more you rationalize an iron-fist approach by Arab dictators as the lesser of two evils, the more progressists get sucked in Al-Qaeda-like movements. The more support those tyrants get, the more the people will the hate the ones giving that support. And I won’t even talk about the bombing of innocents (i.e: Iraq) as it should be just common sense to denounce it.

The two things that might revert the trend are an uprising of the oppressed Arabs against the tyrants ruling them, and the election of a non-interventionist in Washington. None of which will happen in our lifetimes…

122

It’s great to see you have a religion to whip, pat!

It makes me all warm inside, knowing you and I are cut from the same cloth… we just despise different religions.

From now on, I shall consider you “Brother pat” … or dude. It will depend on the circumstance.

124

[quote]kroby wrote:
It’s great to see you have a religion to whip, pat!

It makes me all warm inside, knowing you and I are cut from the same cloth… we just despise different religions.

From now on, I shall consider you “Brother pat” … or dude. It will depend on the circumstance.[/quote]

That’s because you do not read carefully. I am not “whipping” on islam. I am challenging the behavior of violent muslims and their apologists. The difference is that these people are killing people, right now, today. I find that behavior unacceptable. If they were to stop this, I would have no problem with them.
Unlike you, I don’t profess to know enough about islam itself to “whip” on the religion itself. Others do and that is their prerogative.
Also, I do not despise islam, or muslims, if I did I would by my cigars else wear because the shop where I am a regular are owned and operated by a muslim couple who are very nice and often have good recommendations on cigars. Alas, there aren’t that many muslims around here so that is about all the interaction I have.

But I will challenge and I will be deliberately inflammatory to create discussion. I will do that.

125

[quote]ahzaz wrote:

My little brother’s first name is Muhammad. Because of that, at the british security, they interrogated us more than usual. “Where are you going? how long? what are you going to do? are u going to go anywhere else?” etc. More than what they asked the usual people.

I also noted (while i was in line) that whoever was brown (south asian) or middle eastern was interrogated for longer. White and black people were hardly interrogated.

The media is very powerful. Terrorist attacks caused us to have to go through so much at ALL those terminals. Lots of us are outraged at what these people are doing. Its just that we dont get the media’s attention. We’ve all heard of the rumour on how Bush doesnt want to leave Iraq so he can get their oil right? The government controls the media. Connection much?[/quote]

Honestly, though I am sorry you had to endure that, but what do you expect, I mean honestly? The name “Muhammad” elicits fear in non muslims because there has been so much violence propagated by muslims in the name of islam. This isn’t a problem of media spin, it is the daily violence that gets to people.

126

[quote]pat wrote:
kroby wrote:
It’s great to see you have a religion to whip, pat!

It makes me all warm inside, knowing you and I are cut from the same cloth… we just despise different religions.

From now on, I shall consider you “Brother pat” … or dude. It will depend on the circumstance.

That’s because you do not read carefully. I am not “whipping” on islam. I am challenging the behavior of violent muslims and their apologists. The difference is that these people are killing people, right now, today. I find that behavior unacceptable. If they were to stop this, I would have no problem with them.
Unlike you, I don’t profess to know enough about islam itself to “whip” on the religion itself. Others do and that is their prerogative.
Also, I do not despise islam, or muslims, if I did I would by my cigars else wear because the shop where I am a regular are owned and operated by a muslim couple who are very nice and often have good recommendations on cigars. Alas, there aren’t that many muslims around here so that is about all the interaction I have.

But I will challenge and I will be deliberately inflammatory to create discussion. I will do that.[/quote]

When a people use a religion as a banner, a raison d’etre, you cannot separate the person from the religion. If you despise the person and their actions, as they do them “in the name of…” the religion falls with the persons committing acts in it’s name.

People blow themselves up in a crowded market because of their religion. There are no two ways around it.

You take that attitude, fostered by their religion, and make a value decision. Is it good or bad? If bad, do you make a conscious effort to shine a light on it? That is what I mean when I said whip.

Now, are there more than one religion if Islam?

127

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
zarrs wrote:
…

Thanks for sharing a thoughtful point of view.

ROFLMAO!

Yeah, that’s an opinion we’ve never, ever heard before here.

Just be pro-Muslim, and all of sudden you become all insightful and shit!

Really funny stuff.[/quote]

I’m not pro anything if you referring to me, just because i don’t jump on the bandwagon as such dosnt mean im pro anything.
I also disagree with the crusade part because the holy crusades started mainly over trade routes, the pope may have gave his blessing but the English were pretty head strong about going for gold.

The Islam nutters that are going around now are doing the same thing using religion to drive out the westerns with people like bin ladaden using globazz=ion of the west as a valid reason

But you gotta love the talks about relgion and politics they are always interesting, even if its the golden rule not to talk about them :smiley:

128

[quote]lixy wrote:
In fact, every Muslim analog of the Church has actively condemned those rascals - fatwas in hand. So, no, a comparison to the Holy Crusades is flawed.
[/quote]

The Pope issued an apology for the Crusades back in 2000

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june00/apology_3-13.html

129

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The Pope issued an apology for the Crusades back in 2000

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june00/apology_3-13.html[/quote]

I know. But the Crusades had the blessing of the Church at the time and that’s all that matters when trying to compare them with what Ben Laden and his crew are doing.

And I’ll remind you that Jean Paul is not Benedict. I speculate that Benny wouldn’t have issued that thing.

130

I love how the Crusades are always referred to as if they were unprovoked aggression. They didn’t just appear out of no where. In case anyone needs reminding, they were expeditions undertaken to deliver the Holy lands from Muslim tyranny & butchery.

131

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I love how the Crusades are always referred to as if they just appeared out of no where as unprovoked aggression. [/quote]

Where on God’s green Earth did you see anyone refer to the Crusades “as if they just appeared out of no where [sic]”, much less “always”?

That’s a serious question. People need to stop building strawmen and accusing others of words they never uttered (or in this case, typed).

132

[quote]lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
I love how the Crusades are always referred to as if they just appeared out of no where as unprovoked aggression.

Where on God’s green Earth did you see anyone refer to the Crusades “as if they just appeared out of no where [sic]”, much less “always”?

That’s a serious question. People need to stop building strawmen and accusing others of words they never uttered (or in this case, typed).[/quote]

Good to hear we’re on the same page. I, too, was never clear on why the Church was expected to apologize over and over again for the crusades. Especially when Islam has yet to acknowledge - much less apologize for - its preemptory aggression in the middle east, north africa, and spain.

[edit - btw lixy, I wasn’t directing my general observation at you anyway! ~katz]

133

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[edit - btw lixy, I wasn’t directing my general observation at you anyway! ~katz][/quote]

Then who was it directed at?

Saying that “the Crusades are always referred to” is a classical use of weasel words to build a strawman.

134

[quote]lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
[edit - btw lixy, I wasn’t directing my general observation at you anyway! ~katz]

Then who was it directed at?

Saying that “the Crusades are always referred to” is a classical use of weasel words to build a strawman.[/quote]

The topic of this thread is whether Islam is a religion of peace, right? The question of whether the Pope apologized for the crusades - and whether or not “Benny” will repeat the apology - was brought up, right?

I was simply observing that the Church is often expected to apologize for the crusades; and, in general, for any transgression no matter how slight - and, yet, for some reason, Islam seems exempted from doing so. This is an asymmetry that I find rather disturbing.

135

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
[edit - btw lixy, I wasn’t directing my general observation at you anyway! ~katz]

Then who was it directed at?

Saying that “the Crusades are always referred to” is a classical use of weasel words to build a strawman.

The topic of this thread is whether Islam is a religion of peace, right? The question of whether the Pope apologized for the crusades - and whether or not “Benny” will repeat the apology - was brought up, right?

I was simply observing that the Church is often expected to apologize for the crusades; and, in general, for any transgression no matter how slight - and, yet, for some reason, Islam seems exempted from doing so. This is an asymmetry that I find rather disturbing. [/quote]

How hard was it to take the time to phrase it in this terms instead of what you posted previously?

But I’ll still ask you to be more specific. Who is it that’s expecting anything from the Church? Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, I have always thought forgiveness played a central role in Christianism. Surely, you must see apologies and forgiveness are closely related.

To tackle your point, who is it that you want to speak for Islam? To me, that prerogative was the exclusive domain of the prophet. And the man is dead. So what “transgression” do you want “Islam” to apologize for? Chances are high that it’ll involve a bunch of Turks, and in case you haven’t noticed, those can’t even be bothered to recognize what they did to the Kurds.

The Church is an institution. It has a code, a leader, headquarters, etc. Islam is a religion, an ideology and a lifestyle. You can sue the Church, but you can’t sue “Islam”.

Your idea is akin to asking Capitalism, Romanticism or Taoism to not be “exempted from doing so” (i.e: be “often expected to apologize […] for any transgression no matter how slight”).

136

[quote]kroby wrote:
pat wrote:
kroby wrote:
It’s great to see you have a religion to whip, pat!

It makes me all warm inside, knowing you and I are cut from the same cloth… we just despise different religions.

From now on, I shall consider you “Brother pat” … or dude. It will depend on the circumstance.

That’s because you do not read carefully. I am not “whipping” on islam. I am challenging the behavior of violent muslims and their apologists. The difference is that these people are killing people, right now, today. I find that behavior unacceptable. If they were to stop this, I would have no problem with them.
Unlike you, I don’t profess to know enough about islam itself to “whip” on the religion itself. Others do and that is their prerogative.
Also, I do not despise islam, or muslims, if I did I would by my cigars else wear because the shop where I am a regular are owned and operated by a muslim couple who are very nice and often have good recommendations on cigars. Alas, there aren’t that many muslims around here so that is about all the interaction I have.

But I will challenge and I will be deliberately inflammatory to create discussion. I will do that.

When a people use a religion as a banner, a raison d’etre, you cannot separate the person from the religion. If you despise the person and their actions, as they do them “in the name of…” the religion falls with the persons committing acts in it’s name.

People blow themselves up in a crowded market because of their religion. There are no two ways around it.

You take that attitude, fostered by their religion, and make a value decision. Is it good or bad? If bad, do you make a conscious effort to shine a light on it? That is what I mean when I said whip.

Now, are there more than one religion if Islam?

[/quote]

If people use a country’s flag to do bad shit does that make the whole country bad? Because Ted Kennedy is a supreme murdering dick head does that make all Kennedy’s bad?

What I am hoping for is that “they” use islam to wield power over it’s practitioners and force them into submission. What I am hoping for is that using the religion to commit evil and horrible atrocities is an abomination to the actual religion. The problem I have is rather than condemning the actions of the evil, muslims have tended to place blame elsewhere, et al. Israel or the U.S. for the most part. I would like to think despite all the evil that has been intertwined with the religion, that it is ultimately good; kind of like Darth Vader. I guess only time will tell, but no I do not see things the way you do.

137

[quote]lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
[edit - btw lixy, I wasn’t directing my general observation at you anyway! ~katz]

Then who was it directed at?

Saying that “the Crusades are always referred to” is a classical use of weasel words to build a strawman.

The topic of this thread is whether Islam is a religion of peace, right? The question of whether the Pope apologized for the crusades - and whether or not “Benny” will repeat the apology - was brought up, right?

I was simply observing that the Church is often expected to apologize for the crusades; and, in general, for any transgression no matter how slight - and, yet, for some reason, Islam seems exempted from doing so. This is an asymmetry that I find rather disturbing.

How hard was it to take the time to phrase it in this terms instead of what you posted previously?

But I’ll still ask you to be more specific. Who is it that’s expecting anything from the Church? Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, I have always thought forgiveness played a central role in Christianism. Surely, you must see apologies and forgiveness are closely related.

To tackle your point, who is it that you want to speak for Islam? To me, that prerogative was the exclusive domain of the prophet. And the man is dead. So what “transgression” do you want “Islam” to apologize for? Chances are high that it’ll involve a bunch of Turks, and in case you haven’t noticed, those can’t even be bothered to recognize what they did to the Kurds.

The Church is an institution. It has a code, a leader, headquarters, etc. Islam is a religion, an ideology and a lifestyle. You can sue the Church, but you can’t sue “Islam”.

Your idea is akin to asking Capitalism, Romanticism or Taoism to not be “exempted from doing so” (i.e: be “often expected to apologize […] for any transgression no matter how slight”).[/quote]

I think someone other than Osama needs to step up and take some leadership role. Leaving everything up to individual interpretation is not working out so well.

138

[quote]lixy wrote:
So what “transgression” do you want “Islam” to apologize for? [/quote]

“Islam” has at least as much to apologize for as the Church. Do we really need to go over all that?

[quote]
To tackle your point, who is it that you want to speak for Islam? To me, that prerogative was the exclusive domain of the prophet. And the man is dead.

Your idea is akin to asking Capitalism, Romanticism or Taoism to not be “exempted from doing so” (i.e: be “often expected to apologize […] for any transgression no matter how slight”).[/quote]

Are there are no Muslim leaders?

139

[quote]pat wrote:
If people use a country’s flag to do bad shit does that make the whole country bad? Because Ted Kennedy is a supreme murdering dick head does that make all Kennedy’s bad?[/quote]

If some crackpot Warren Jeffs, leader of the FLDS uses religion to advance his unique views, do we not say his religion is cracked?

I see. You’re a romantic optimist. How’s that working for you? Ah, that’s right. You’re upset. Disturbed. One day you will turn to the Dark Side. Pragmatism is the only way to come to terms with the World today.

140

Queen Rania of Jordan launched a YouTube channel to educate bigots and morons about Islam, the Arab world and women living there. Well, she doesn’t put it in these terms but you get the idea.

And she’s cute to boot!