Islam is the most misunderstood religion in contemporary society

[Kenny]

This has nothing to do with Islam

But it is done in the name of Islam and thus, as I said, you can't blame the West for what the adherent of Islam do and project

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You did somewhat gloss over the fact that, historically and theologically, it has very much meant holy war.

While it can also mean what you noted, there is a very significant tradition of jihad as warfare in the Islamic tradition.

Jihad: Struggle, or striving, but often understood both within the Muslim tradition and beyond it as warfare against infidels...

Also, the phrases denoting the “greater” jihād (i.e. one’s personal struggle to be a better Mus- lim) that are common in later literature, namely, “struggle of the self ” ( jihād al-nafs)or “struggle with the devil” ( jihād al-shayān, see devil), do not occur in the Qurān...

Very little of the peaceful sense of j-h-d remained in Muslim culture and the understanding of jihād as war became predominant. Nevertheless, there are verses in the Qurān that attest to other significations. The best example is q 22:78. By linguistic and contextual criteria, the phrase “exert yourself in the way of God as is his right” (wa-jāhidū fī llāhi aqqa jihādihi)clearly does not refer to warfare, but to other forms of effort made by way of obedience to God...

In the same vein, q 49:15 deals with definitions of belief and the phrase “those who strive”(alladhīna... jāhadū) apparently refers not to warriors but to those who perform all the divine ordinances (cf. Bayāwī, Anwār, ii,277). Yet many commentators (including al-abarī, d. 310⁄923) insist that in these two cases the term refers to participation in warfare.

The warlike meaning of jihād thus predominates, to the extent that q-t-l, “kill,” was sometimes glossed by j-h-d (e.g. Bayāwī, Anwār, i, 105, ad q 2:190). This predominance is perhaps to be explained by the fact that in this sense of “war,” jihād was given a legal definition, legal categories and regulations, aspects which were discussed at length by the jurists (who often, however, used the term siyar instead of jihād). Also the parallelism between the qurānic phrases jihād “in the way of God”( fī sabīli llāh) and qitāl “in the way of God” may have contributed to the equation ofj-h-d with terms of warfare. In fact the phrase “in the way of God” itself came to mean “warfare against infidels,” although it is not necessarily so in the Qurān.

Finally, the origins of the notion of the sacredness of Islamic warfare should be mentioned. Although jihād and warfare are disparate concepts, only partly overlap- ping, both are endowed with sanctity. The sanctity of jihād was discussed above. The sacredness of warfare derives, first, from the causative link between warfare on the one hand, and divine command and divine decree on the other. Another source is the association of warfare with divine reward and punishment. The roles of warring as a divine test and as a pledge that the believ- ers give to God (q 33:15, 23) add another dimension to the sacredness of warfare. Finally, God’s direct intervention in the military exploits of his community sanctifies these exploits (Encyclopedia of the Quran Vol 3 - Brill)

Jihad warfare means to defend or take back if you are forcefully expelled. The greater Jihad is the struggle for the self. Next time post a link so I can cross check your references

 

[Revoltingest]

Apparently you don’t watch the media Muslims are always talked about. Sad part is that Muslims like Arabs and Indians are always targeted in the U.S.

I was actually thinking of RF, after you mentioned
Muslims here who are reluctant to post about Islam.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

But it is done in the name of Islam and thus, as I said, you can't blame the West for what the adherent of Islam do and project

Lynchings were done in the name of Christianity as well what is the difference? Can’t blame the west now? Neither can the Middle East be blamed.

 

[atanu]

Altfish didn't say it was to do with "spiritual quest of individuals". That this is not the factor involved does not mean religion is not either a contributing or causal factor in some conflicts. The sectarian violence between Muslims of different denominations; the European Wars of Religion - a nearly continuous 100 years of bloodshed between Catholics & Protestants; the Indian Wars in America; the colonialism European countries engaged in in Africa & Australia; the Yellow Turban Rebellion against the Eastern Han Dynasty; the cyclical purging of Confucians, Daoists & Buddhists from Imperial courts and places of power in China over thousands of years; State Shinto in the Japanese Empire.

These conflicts were started or exacerbated by the presence of religious beliefs.

No. All these conflicts are fuelled by sense of separation of ego, an ignorant notion that all religions actually purport to dispel.

 

[YmirGF]

Jihad warfare means to defend or take back if you are forcefully expelled. The greater Jihad is the struggle for the self. Next time post a link so I can cross check your references

What always gets me chuckling is the flimsy reasons needed to launch a "defensive" war effort. A mere perceived insult could be a reason enough. Thwarting Muslim expansion efforts could also be used to justify war. It's really a wild card that can be played over any slight - it needen't be due to military advances. Add to this the special emphasis on martyrdom for furthering the spread of Islam and you have a psychopath's dream religion.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That is only possible if you have an exact control situation — If you have two exact cultural groups, wherein one group gets a religious teaching and another none.

We are animals and some are more savage than others. I believe that religious teachings help to constrain our animal savage nature.

Unfortunately just as often religion is used as an excuse for our animal savage nature.

 

[Sundance]

Too many wars/disputes relate to religious arguments.
From Israel v Arab to Anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage; they are all based on religion.

How many do you consider too many, @Altfish?

 

[Augustus]

Jihad warfare means to defend or take back if you are forcefully expelled.

That does not reflect the historical usage of the term.

Ultimately, though, it was the caliph who, in the era after the Prophet, was thought to ensure the correctness and legitimacy of Muslim faith and practice. In other words, the caliphate was the plausibility structure par excellence of early Islam. Aside from his being a source of guidance, it was also assumed that the Khal ̄ıfat Alla ̄h would lead the Muslims in jihad until da ̄r al-Islam was coextensive with the whole world.

The Roots and Achievements of the Early Proto-Sunni Movement: A Profile and Interpretation
Matthew J. Kuiper - The Muslim World • Volume 104 • JANUARY/APRIL 2014

Next time post a link so I can cross check your references

Then YOU need to do the research and see what their views are you shouldn't expect me to provide them for you...I don't know I guess for me being a student for so long I'm used to doing things on my own and investigating truth.

The source is clearly cited, The Encyclopaedia of the Quran Volume 3 published by Brill. The entry is Jihad.

If you own or have access to the text it shouldn't be too hard to find...

 

[Altfish]

How many do you consider too many, @Altfish?

One is too many but there are many more than that.

 

[Kenny]

Lynchings were done in the name of Christianity as well what is the difference? Can’t blame the west now? Neither can the Middle East be blamed.

As I said, you can't blame the west and you can't blame the east. It is what PEOPLE are protraying about Isalm (or Christianity) - which may be different to what is written

 

[Sundance]

One is too many but there are many more than that.

About 126 to be exact. (Edit: 123, not 126, of the 1,763 wars – barely past 7% – fought throughout human history were principally motivated by religion.) Of those 123, only about half (3-4%) featured the Christian religion as the primary instigator.

 

[Shaul]

What you fail to understand is that Pol Pot didn't do that in the name of Atheism. Atheism had nothing to do with his regime.

I don’t fail to understand that, I understand that isn’t true that Pol Pot didn’t kill people specifically because they were religious, he certainly did.

“The Khmer Rouge also classified people based on their religious and ethnic backgrounds. Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge had a policy of state atheism. All religions were banned, and the repression of adherents of Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism was extensive. Nearly 25,000 Buddhist monks were massacred by the regime. The regime dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to either speak their languages or practise their customs. They especially targeted Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or Vietnam, disabled people, and ethnic Chinese, Laotians, and Vietnamese. Some were imprisoned in the S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were summarily executed.”

Pol Pot - Wikipedia

What you seem to not understand that I wrote that it would be just a wrong to use a broad brush against atheists for things Pol Pot did as it would to criticize theists for wrongs done by other religionists or those mistaken as religious but not actually done because if religion at all. Thank you for providing an example which makes my point.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So being based on a Marvel character makes you an authority?

 

[1213]

What is the correct way to look at Islam?

Any faith that promotes good, justice, and equality, and promotes self-growth and excellence and the fair treatment of others which is the baseline of Islam, is the correct way of looking at Islam.

Quran says that we should believe Jesus:
…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah … believe in Allah and His messengers. …

Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
http://quran.com/4/171

That is why I would say, correct way to see Islam is as supporter of Christianity.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I already explained the concept of Jihad or did you overlook that?

I saw it and am familiar with it. Jihad is the struggle to promote Islam, which isn't always through violent means. But Quran 9:29 (the forced, by violence if necessary, submission to Islam), Taqiyya (Ok to lie and other unethical acts to non-Muslims), and the establishment of a the theocracy of Sharia where the law is dictated by Muslim clerics, are the three prong of an Islamic theocracy. Until Muslims shun those three elements of Islam, it is nothing more than a political entity in Imam's clothing looking to force the world to submit to it.

Are you going to respond to that now or just toss out another red herring.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I made this abundantly clear in the beginning. There are compounding elements that contribute to the violent by nature of people.

And the reason that the rest of Islam is their near-silent opponent is what?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You are mistaken in linking terrorism to Orthodox mainstream Islam.
Pakistan clerics issue fatwa against suicide bombings

Please read the whole post.

 

[LuisDantas]

Lynchings were done in the name of Christianity as well what is the difference? Can’t blame the west now? Neither can the Middle East be blamed.

That is a fairly good question. Where is the difference?

It seems clear to me that one key difference is indeed in the doctrines. Christianity is not quite as obsessed with non-believers as Islaam is. It does not promise itself to eventually convert everyone else quite as forcefully as Islaam does. And as direct result, it is significantly more functional as an actual religious doctrine.

It is no coincidence that Christianity ended up learning better on so much, even despite itself, while Islaam seems to refuse to.

 

[Altfish]

About 126 to be exact. (Edit: 123, not 126, of the 1,763 wars – barely past 7% – fought throughout human history were principally motivated by religion.) Of those 123, only about half (3-4%) featured the Christian religion as the primary instigator.

Is that ok then?