The term "religion of peace"

[firedragon]

Regarding Islam meaning 'submission' which can in turn be taken as peace:

In the hypothetical ultimatum of either worldwide destruction from opposition or dystopian fascism from submission, which one is is more resemblant to 'peace'?

I dont claim Islam as a whole religion is some religion of peace or anything like that. But the basic meaning of the word Islam has to be understood, even if one does not agree with the whole. One has to understand where the whole thing stems from.

The word Islam comes from Aslama which means submission. Aslama comes from peace. Thats how muslims greet. Peace. Salam.

Thats where this whole notion stems from.

I understand one could disagree the whole system does not mean peace or religion of peace. But at least people have to understand where this interpretation comes from. Hope you understand.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I dont claim Islam as a whole religion is some religion of peace or anything like that. But the basic meaning of the word Islam has to be understood, even if one does not agree with the whole. One has to understand where the whole thing stems from.

The word Islam comes from Aslama which means submission. Aslama comes from peace. Thats how muslims greet. Peace. Salam.

Thats where this whole notion stems from.

I understand one could disagree the whole system does not mean peace or religion of peace. But at least people have to understand where this interpretation comes from. Hope you understand.

Oh no, I fully understand if properly practiced, Islam is a solid route to communion with the First Mover.
It's my opinion, if properly practiced, most modern religions would be considered religions of peace.
The least peaceful modern religion would honestly be atheism: The official religion of the ex-Soviet Union and currently the CCP, those nations don't exactly scream 'peace'.

Some people hear Muhammad and in their mind's eye perceive 'warmonger'. Some people hear Muslim and in their minds eye perceive 'terrorists and suicide bombers'. Some people hear Islam and in their mind's eye perceive 'beheading of infidels and stoning women to death'.
I perceive 'lost sheep found'. I perceive 'Islamic conservatism'. I perceive 'strong traditionalism and receptiveness to debate and guests'.

There are extremists and violent people of every sect as far as I can tell, to label a whole group by the actions of a few outliers is an unproductive practice that alienates and demonizes. The only reason I see to purposefully alienate and demonize, is to excommunicate and/or exterminate.

 

[firedragon]

Oh no, I fully understand if properly practiced, Islam is a solid route to communion with the First Mover.
It's my opinion, if properly practiced, most modern religions would be considered religions of peace.
The least peaceful modern religion would honestly be atheism: The official religion of the ex-Soviet Union and currently the CCP, those nations don't exactly scream 'peace'.

Some people hear Muhammad and in their mind's eye perceive 'warmonger'. Some people hear Muslim and in their minds eye perceive 'terrorists and suicide bombers'. Some people hear Islam and in their mind's eye perceive 'beheading of infidels and stoning women to death'.
I perceive 'lost sheep found'. I perceive 'Islamic conservatism'. I perceive 'strong traditionalism and receptiveness to debate and guests'.

There are extremists and violent people of every sect as far as I can tell, to label a whole group by the actions of a few outliers is an unproductive practice that alienates and demonizes. The only reason I see to purposefully alienate and demonize, is to excommunicate and/or exterminate.

For studies on "terrorism" I suggest you read Robert pape or even Rohan Gunaratne.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would argue that the religions themselves are capable of being considered peaceful. If we could separate the forest (religion) from the trees (individuals), perhaps we could differentiate the wheat (honest & good intended) from the chaff (manipulative & malevolent).

In and of themselves the history of the ancient tribal religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and is Islam are not religions of peace. Also, no single religion or there many conflicting varieties are not isolated 'in and of themselves' historically and today they interact violently and in contention with those that do not believe as they do.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh no, I fully understand if properly practiced, Islam is a solid route to communion with the First Mover.
It's my opinion, if properly practiced, most modern religions would be considered religions of peace.
The least peaceful modern religion would honestly be atheism: The official religion of the ex-Soviet Union and currently the CCP, those nations don't exactly scream 'peace'.

Some people hear Muhammad and in their mind's eye perceive 'warmonger'. Some people hear Muslim and in their minds eye perceive 'terrorists and suicide bombers'. Some people hear Islam and in their mind's eye perceive 'beheading of infidels and stoning women to death'.
I perceive 'lost sheep found'. I perceive 'Islamic conservatism'. I perceive 'strong traditionalism and receptiveness to debate and guests'.

There are extremists and violent people of every sect as far as I can tell, to label a whole group by the actions of a few outliers is an unproductive practice that alienates and demonizes. The only reason I see to purposefully alienate and demonize, is to excommunicate and/or exterminate.

I seriously question the 'If practiced properly, because scriptures themselves,historical relations with others who believe differently, and and their cultural history as tribal origins DO NOT promote a 'religion of peace.

 

[shunyadragon]

Very few examples of 'religions of peace' occur to me. Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Sunni and Shia, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Shintoists, have all proved excellent at waging war and killing both each other and others. Indeed, Hera and Athena are goddesses of war.

Will the real Quakers please stand up?

I question your inclusion of Buddhists on this list, except for 'political' and nationalist motivations' Buddhism is more like a religion of peace than other religions.

Yes, Shintoism is most definitely not a religion of peace, but in WWII Japan was dominated by Shinto rule and the Buddhists were in general did not support the war, and were oppressed into submission, and by obligation to state Shinto Nationalism.

Unitarian Universalists have pretty much advocated peace in their history,

The Baha'i Faith at its foundation is a peaceful religion.

 

[Clara Tea]

what is the real reason Islam is sometimes called a "religion of peace"?

Everything that I write is my opinion unless

911 attack: The two skyscrapers of the World Trade Center (New York) were destroyed by two hijacked planes, and a third hijacked plane was "likely" headed to an undisclosed target in Washington, D.C. when it was intentionally crashed by passengers. A fourth plane crashed into the Pentagon. Though the US didn't realize that it was at war, though the World Trade Center had been truck bombed prior to this, terrorists gave up their lives to killed US citizens, destory their property, and strike terror so that they would have to guard everything, everywhere, always. This terror motivated President W. Bush to declare war against the peaceful nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which had nothing to do with terrorism. Even torture camps were used, and W. Bush said that nuclear weapons were not "off the table" (that is, the US might launch nuclear weapons in their phony wars).

Propaganda motivated these terrorists (and many others like them). US citizens didn't realize that Middle Eastern factions thought that they were evil.

The new propaganda says that Islam is a religion of peace. Is it true? Khomeni had issued a fatwa (like a Mafia hit to murder) on Solmon Rushdie because he wrote "Satanic Verses" which is critical of Islam.

Middle Eastern propaganda is rife. They even prey on little kids to warp their minds and program them to be killing machines.

Hamas Bunny on Jews: ‘I Will Eat Them Up’

Farfur was a pro-terror cartoon Mickey Mouse knock-off, but beaten to death by an Israeli cartoon character.

Their next cartoon terrorist is a bunny that says "I will finish off the Jews and eat them, Allah willing."

Hamas TV Bunny makes deathbed call for Palestine 'liberation'

a man dressed in a bunny costume, is wounded by an Israeli attack on the Al-Aksa TV station in Gaza and later dies of his injuries. Assud lies on his deathbed, telling his co-host, 11-year-old Saraa, the lessons he wishes for her to pass on to all Palestinian children. Assud first laments the killing of children by IDF soldiers in Gaza: "The Zionist enemy is treacherous, and it kills everything, but I never thought it would kill the children of Palestine, and that it would bomb the Al-Aksa TV station," he cries. Assud implores Saraa to remember the importance of Jerusalem and to tell the Palestinian children of the necessity of martyrdom. (Picture and source is in the website above).

Hamas Bunny Eats Jews | Religion Dispatches

"Farfur was replaced by a bee named Nahul, who died when he was refused medical care by the Israeli authorities" (Source is in the website above).

More than 70 dead as violence escalates between Israel, Hamas

May 11, 2021 70 killed in airstrikes between Palestine and Israel. (Source above).

Land for peace? I see the land....but where is the peace?

 

[Clara Tea]

I question your inclusion of Buddhists on this list, except for 'political' and nationalist motivations' Buddhism is more like a religion of peace than other religions.

Yes, Shintoism is most definitely not a religion of peace, but in WWII Japan was dominated by Shinto rule and the Buddhists were in general did not support the war, and were oppressed into submission, and by obligation to state Shinto Nationalism.

Unitarian Universalists have pretty much advocated peace in their history,

The Baha'i Faith at its foundation is a peaceful religion.

The various Baha'i who post in this forum are peaceful and comforting. I can recognize peaceful people when I see them.

 

[cataway]

in the history of man kind the way to get peace and security is to go and kill every one that would contend with your way of life . its not something that i am advocating. it just a observation

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I seriously question the 'If practiced properly, because scriptures themselves,historical relations with others who believe differently, and and their cultural history as tribal origins DO NOT promote a 'religion of peace.

Tell that to the Greek/Romans and Egyptians, who worshipped the same Gods. The same Gods that eventually were changed or incorporated into the Abrahamic religions of today.
Tell it to the Norse, who abandoned the 'Old Ways' for Christianity. A plague raged through their military ranks nearly forcing them to abandon a season of raiding until they prayed to the Abrahamic God and the plague expediently left them. They took this as proof of the might of the Christian God and began to pay homage to Him.

Want to know what causes more death and bedlam than any religion post twenty-first century common era?

The whole "Democracy vs. Communism" debacle.
It's on the verge of causing WW3 as we debate religion's cause of violence.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Please mention/elaborate that "certain order", why think it was only a single order instead of some or more of them? Right?

Regards

Mohamed received revelations one after the other, thereby creating an order. I'm suggesting that because that order was good enough for Mohamed and the first Muslims, then it should be good enough for all time. For example, surah 2 was actually received after 12 years and presenting is as the 2nd surah gives a new reader of the qur'an an incorrect impression regarding the evolution of Islam.

One may like to read the following:

"There are traditions which relate that whenever a verse or group of verses was revealed to the Holy Prophet, he would send for one of the recorders and direct him to record the verse or verses indicating at the same time to which Chapter and where they belonged. This shows that at the time of receiving a revelation the Holy Prophet was also informed where the revealed verse or verses belonged."
Page-269 "Introduction to the study of the Holy Quran"
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf
Right?

Regards

 

[blü 2]

I question your inclusion of Buddhists on this list, except for 'political' and nationalist motivations' Buddhism is more like a religion of peace than other religions.

The government of Sri Lanka, which conducted a racist and murderous and continuous civil war against its Tamil citizens, was and is thoroughly Buddhist.

The government of Thailand, which conducted "covert" constant military persecutions of its Islamic citizens in the south, was and is thoroughly Buddhist.

The military dictatorship in Burma persecuted and persecutes its Rohingya citizens and their version of Islam, is thoroughly Buddhist. Not even Buddhist opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi disagrees.

The history of south-east Asia, and the Buddhist nations of Thailand and its neighbors, is a history of invasive and defensive wars.

Yes, Shintoism is most definitely not a religion of peace, but in WWII Japan was dominated by Shinto rule and the Buddhists were in general did not support the war, and were oppressed into submission, and by obligation to state Shinto Nationalism.

No argument. The divinity of the Emperor was a central civil and military tenet, and basic to the understanding of Japanese politics up to and in WW2; and about the first thing the Japanese were required to renounce in defeat.

Unitarian Universalists have pretty much advocated peace in their history.

The Baha'i Faith at its foundation is a peaceful religion.

Are UUs and Baha'is actively pacifist like the Quakers? Or if they were in the Ukraine now, would they now be armed and fighting?

 

[stevecanuck]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Please mention/elaborate that "certain order", why think it was only a single order instead of some or more of them? Right?

Regards


One may like to read the following:

"There are traditions which relate that whenever a verse or group of verses was revealed to the Holy Prophet, he would send for one of the recorders and direct him to record the verse or verses indicating at the same time to which Chapter and where they belonged. This shows that at the time of receiving a revelation the Holy Prophet was also informed where the revealed verse or verses belonged."
Page-269 "Introduction to the study of the Holy Quran"
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf
Right?

Regards

Ok, I can accept that.

I still find it telling that Mohamed's first 12 years of prophethood were basically swept aside by inserting the 87th surah at the beginning. It gives an entirely wrong impression of events until then,

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
paarsurrey said: ↑
Please mention/elaborate that "certain order", why think it was only a single order instead of some or more of them? Right?
One may like to read the following:
"There are traditions which relate that whenever a verse or group of verses was revealed to the Holy Prophet, he would send for one of the recorders and direct him to record the verse or verses indicating at the same time to which Chapter and where they belonged. This shows that at the time of receiving a revelation the Holy Prophet was also informed where the revealed verse or verses belonged."
Page-269 "Introduction to the study of the Holy Quran"
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf
Right?

Ok, I can accept that.
I still find it telling that Mohamed's first 12 years of prophethood were basically swept aside by inserting the 87th surah at the beginning. It gives an entirely wrong impression of events until then,

Sorry, I could not understand one exactly .
Does one mean here "Chapter 87. Al-A`la", please?

Regards

 

[stevecanuck]

Sorry, I could not understand one exactly .
Does one mean here "Chapter 87. Al-A`la", please?

Regards

No, I'm referring to the fact that surah 2 was the 87th chronologically. All 86 Meccan surahs are sprinkled throughout the qur'an.

 

[shunyadragon]

The government of Sri Lanka, which conducted a racist and murderous and continuous civil war against its Tamil citizens, was and is thoroughly Buddhist

The government of Thailand, which conducted "covert" constant military persecutions of its Islamic citizens in the south, was and is thoroughly Buddhist.

The military dictatorship in Burma persecuted and persecutes its Rohingya citizens and their version of Islam, is thoroughly Buddhist. Not even Buddhist opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi disagrees.

The history of south-east Asia, and the Buddhist nations of Thailand and its neighbors, is a history of invasive and defensive wars.
.

Already addressed this, and it DOES NJOT address the history of Buddhism.

No argument. The divinity of the Emperor was a central civil and military tenet, and basic to the understanding of Japanese politics up to and in WW2; and about the first thing the Japanese were required to renounce in defeat.

FALSE, and you apparently are ignorant of the history and culture of Japan dominated by Shinto, and the relationship to Buddhism in history. Buddhism has never been a political movement in Japan, again historically dominated by Shinto.

Are UUs and Baha'is actively pacifist like the Quakers? Or if they were in the Ukraine now, would they now be armed and fighting?

UUs and Baha'is are NOT actively pacifists. Ukraine has nothing to do with this.

 

[shunyadragon]

Tell that to the Greek/Romans and Egyptians, who worshipped the same Gods. The same Gods that eventually were changed or incorporated into the Abrahamic religions of today.
Tell it to the Norse, who abandoned the 'Old Ways' for Christianity. A plague raged through their military ranks nearly forcing them to abandon a season of raiding until they prayed to the Abrahamic God and the plague expediently left them. They took this as proof of the might of the Christian God and began to pay homage to Him.

Not really relevant to thread topic. Still did not respond to my post relevant to the facts of history and scripture that the ancient tribal Abrahamic religions do advocate violence against those outside the tribe, and the result that they are violent in history against those that do not believe. Yes the ancient European tribal religions were in violent conflict with the ancient Abrahamic tribal religions and were in fact cleansed from Europe.

Want to know what causes more death and bedlam than any religion post twenty-first century common era?

The whole "Democracy vs. Communism" debacle.
It's on the verge of causing WW3 as we debate religion's cause of violence.

This is not a bout the Nationalist/political conflicts in the world except when they have their roots in the ancient tribal religions.

 

[KWED]

No, it did not. Here is the post in question:

"My impression has been that the phrase was initially intended as a defense by Muslims and their rhetoric allies against the usual Islamophobic rhetoric focusing on the issue of jihad and Islam's reputation in the West as a religion for fanatics and terrorists.

Since then it has naturally been appropriated by Islam's worst critics; these days, the only time I see it come up is when people try to back-handedly insert Islamophobia into an argument without coming out and honestly expressing their disgust and hatred towards Muslims."

I was talking specifically about the usage of the phrase "religion of peace" - you know, the actual topic of the OP - and I noted that it was being used specifically as a rhetorical backhand with Islamophobic purpose. I used the phrase "Islam's worst critics", which very heavily implies that there are better critics of Islam who do not use that kind of rhetoric.

So anyone who uses the term "religion of peace" is necessarily an "Islamophobe"?

BTW, according to the OED, "Islamophobia" can de defined as "Dislike of Islam, especially as a political force". TBH, can't see there's anything wrong with that position, can you?

So it very much appears to me that you taking offense to my argument is based on either your own frequent usage of a turn of phrase intended to mock and denigrate Muslims, or a failure to closely and comprehensively read my posts.

I never use the term, and I fully understand your position, so it must be something else - as I pointed out.

Have you seen these posts attacked as Islamophobic? Or are you talking about different posts, in different threads, who were attacked by different people as Islamophobic?

You have clearly implied that reasonable criticism of Islam can be dismissed as "Islamophobia".

 

[KWED]

I think open displays of mockery generally point towards a lack of nuanced engagement with a discussion, yes.

I didn't mention "mockery".
However, you are clearly not aware of the long and rich tradition of satire (which often employs mockery, ridicule and exaggerated characterisations) as a legitimate and respected form of criticism of ideas.

I expect you would follow a similar line of reasoning when people mocked and laughed at your own ideas, even if you would likely fail to draw the obvious parallels.

I don't dismiss them as reasonophobes or anti-evidence bigots. I simply address each point.

Please don't assume my positions on a different topic than the one under discussion just because you don't like my take on a turn of phrase you seem to like.

Careful with that irony, it burns. (And again, I don't use the term, I am merely pointing out the flaws in your arguments).
And with all due respect, how can you claim your position on criticising Islam is not relevant to a thread on criticising Islam, especially when you have used several posts to express criticism of people criticising Islam.
Your lack of self-awareness (or disingenuousness) is remarkable.

I find plenty to criticize about the way Muslims practice their religion and justify said practices, but I will not stoop to bigotry.

You still haven't managed to explain where the "bigotry" lies in criticising Islam as an ideology.
You haven't even managed to present an argument for why referring to it as "the religion of peace" is bigotry. You have merely asserted that anyone who uses it is necessarily a bigot.

TBH I'm not sure what the point of your posts is other than some kind of misguided virtue signalling.

 

[KWED]

Islam is a peaceful religion because it forbids evil and mischief on earth.

1. Why does that make it "peaceful"?
2. Define "evil and mischief"?
3. What are the punishments for committing "evil and mischief"?