What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

[The Kilted Heathen]

Eastern seems to be peaceful. Don't you think so?

No. Not when Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism all have their hand in violence.

You can't even prove Allah actually exists, much less that he is the only god and that he is the Creator of literally everything.

Heck, they can't even really name him; Allah is a title that really only means "the one true god".

 

[sovietchild]

Heck, they can't even really name him; Allah is a title that really only means "the one true god".

Names of God in Islam - Wikipedia
99 Names of Allah - Asmaul Husna

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Nice try, but those are also titles. "The All-Compassionate" (while also an oxymoron) is not a name. I can give you a list of 75+ "names" of Óðinn, but his name is still Óðinn.

 

[Glaurung]

I question this narrative of events. Specifically, if the Crusades were in response to Muslim aggression then why weren't they first aimed at the Moors who were occupying a good portion of what was previously Christian Spain?

Well, they did get that land back. It took centuries, but the Moors were driven out.

Regardless, it's no easy thing getting Europeans to work together. But let's look at the situation from the Christian point of view. You had the loss of two-thirds of the Christian world, encroachments into Gaul by the followers of the Prophet and the constant shrinking of the Eastern Empire. There was also the problem of the constant slave raids by Berber forces. Something had to be done, although the Crusades were a failure in the long run.

Further, Christians won those lands in the near East by using the state apparatus of the Eastern Roman Empire to outlaw and suppress the worship of the Old Gods. The idea that Christianity only spread through voluntary conversion is as revisionist as the claims that Muhammad peacefully converted all of Arabia to Islam.

Sure, but that doesn't justify the vilification of the Crusades as some proto-colonial adventure. I roll my eyes when people try to use long over medieval wars to vilify Christians, or when Jihadists use it to justify to murder of Copts. It's asinine.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I question this narrative of events. Specifically, if the Crusades were in response to Muslim aggression then why weren't they first aimed at the Moors who were occupying a good portion of what was previously Christian Spain? Further, Christians won those lands in the near East by using the state apparatus of the Eastern Roman Empire to outlaw and suppress the worship of the Old Gods. The idea that Christianity only spread through voluntary conversion is as revisionist as the claims that Muhammad peacefully converted all of Arabia to Islam.

Plus, Muslim Spain was much more civilized than the Christian world at the time, to be honest. The Christians were filthy fanatics during that time, and curses be on Ferdinand and Isabella. Dirty barbarians. (Literally filthy and dirty, at that.)

 

[EmperorSwordMan]

I don't know, maybe because it-just-so-happens that the religion of Islam is the main cause of religious terrorism around the world today, and has been for the last 20-30 years. Or maybe it's the fact that in most Muslim majority countries you can be legally executed by the government for practicing other religions as well as breaking religious based laws like being gay, smoking, or being a female who decided to drive a car. I don't know man, you really got me.

 

[Sakeenah]

Armstrong isn't a historian she is a writer. More so she is not even a major one in actually historian circles of the likes of Fred Donner.

The smashing of the idols is more than a simply insult The event is part of Islamic tradition itself.

You're right I have to correct myself, I mean non muslim historians like w.montgomery wat,Thomas Carlyle and Bosworth Smith.

We are talking about the meccan time period within those 13 years not a single idol was smashed.

 

[Shad]

You're right I have to correct myself, I mean non muslim historians like w.montgomery wat,Thomas Carlyle and Bosworth Smith.

All of which are centuries removed from modern academia and base their views on the supposed reliability of Muslim history. Too bad today that Islamic history is not considered reliable as it was centuries ago. Can you list someone with a heartbeat and a source.

We are talking about the meccan time period within those 13 years not a single idol was smashed.[/QUOTE]

No you were. No one else really was. Beside if you confine your time frame to exclude the time frame is did happen you are merely pandering a conclusion you like, nothing more.

 

[Sakeenah]

All of which are centuries removed from modern academia and base their views on the supposed reliability of Muslim history. Too bad today that Islamic history is not considered reliable as it was centuries ago. Can you list someone with a heartbeat and a source.

We are talking about the meccan time period within those 13 years not a single idol was smashed.

Islamic history isn't reliable anymore?how convenient..
Michael Bonner a scholar of Islamic studies and professor at the University of Michigan said something interesting.

“Many of these modern arguments over historiography, and over the rise of Islam and the origins of jihad more generally, began in the nineteenth and the earlier twentieth centuries among European academic specialists in the study of the East, often referred to as the orientalists.”He goes on to note that the motivation of these arguments cannot be disconnected from “their involvement in the colonial project.

Michael David. Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 16.

My post that you quoted before was part of a discussion with @A Greased Scotsman on the presecution of muslims in the meccan time period.So yes talking about events that didn't happened in that time period is not relevant for this particular discussion.

 

[Sakeenah]

And she's relying on Muslims sources while doing it.

Okay, fair point. Maybe 'complaining' wasn't the right term to use. 'Pointing out' sounds better and far less loaded.

He claimed their gods were false and that they prayed to statues & trees. Sounds like slander & mockery to me. If this notion about polytheists didn't start with Muhammad then at what point in Muslim history did it begin? This is the only logical outcome that can be drawn from an exclusive 'there is no god but...' theology. He also smashed the idols & cult objects in the Meccan temple. Does that sound like religious tolerance to you?

Indeed, @sovietchild seems to have no problem with this.

And yet the majority of the world's Muslims live in countries where religious freedom is not practised; where polytheists aren't able to practice their faiths and where non-Muslims in general are dealt with harshly compared to Muslims - if they even exist in a country at all.

Karen amstrong doesn't only rely on muslim sources.
In my opinion claiming someone's Gods is false isn't slandering, it simply means you think they're not God. There are quite a few people that think and say my God is false,and I believe they have the right to have that opinion.According to my beliefs Monotheism (believing in one God)didn't start with prophet muhammad but others before him such as Moses,Abraham and Jesus preached the same message.

I don't believe muslims and muslim governments are perfect.I agree there's a lot of corruption,injustice and inequality.Most muslim citizens do not support the presecution of polytheists but they aren't in charge of the governments.Those in power are more concerned with wealth,power and status than the rights of their citizens.But this has very little to do with the religion itself but more with how some people interpret the holy texts to justify their agenda.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sure, but that doesn't justify the vilification of the Crusades as some proto-colonial adventure.

I'm inclined to agree, but then again it did result in European kings creating fiefs & independent city-states as extensions of their power.

I roll my eyes when people try to use long over medieval wars to vilify Christians, or when Jihadists use it to justify to murder of Copts. It's asinine.

I concur. It's such a stupid thing to do. It's also unnecessary in a lot of cases - both sides have done things a lot more recently that are worthy of condemnation.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yes.
If people are doing good things by smashing the idols,
Then people are doing good things by burning the quran.

In fact I propose that for every smashed idol, one quran should be burnt. And the good will multiply without bound.

I've often thought something similar should happen in India. For every shrine or temple damaged or destroyed by Muslims, one mosque or prayer hall should be closed until said shrine or temple can be reopened safely.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

My post that you quoted before was part of a discussion with @A Greased Scotsman on the presecution of muslims in the meccan time period.So yes talking about events that didn't happened in that time period is not relevant for this particular discussion.

We were? This is the first I'm hearing of it. In any case I wasn't restricting my critique of Muhammad's actions to a certain timeframe. That sort of thinking only serves to justify a flawed perspective - namely that Muhammad was peaceful & never violent - by allowing his apologists to conveniently dismiss the instances where he was intolerant & violent.

Karen amstrong doesn't only rely on muslim sources.

What other sources does she rely on? I'm willing to bet it's non-Muslim sources which themselves rely on Muslim sources.

In my opinion claiming someone's Gods is false isn't slandering, it simply means you think they're not God. There are quite a few people that think and say my God is false,and I believe they have the right to have that opinion.According to my beliefs Monotheism (believing in one God)didn't start with prophet muhammad but others before him such as Moses,Abraham and Jesus preached the same message.

Hmm, Claiming someone else's gods are false isn't slander. How convenient. And I was talking about monotheism as a phenomenon specifically in Islam. And I know you think Moses, Abraham & Jesus were Muslim prophets but, frankly, I'm not awake enough to entertain the Muslim tendency to purloin prophets from religions they believe to be corrupted or incomplete.

I don't believe muslims and muslim governments are perfect.I agree there's a lot of corruption,injustice and inequality.Most muslim citizens do not support the presecution of polytheists but they aren't in charge of the governments.Those in power are more concerned with wealth,power and status than the rights of their citizens.But this has very little to do with the religion itself but more with how some people interpret the holy texts to justify their agenda.

I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence confuses me because it's the inevitable outcome of such visceral monotheism. I don't see Muslims campaigning en masse for the religious rights of Hindus or Pagans in Muslim countries. Indeed I see the opposite: Muslims in Pakistan demonstrating for whichever poor soul has been falsely accused of blasphemy this time to be put to death for it; Muslims in Indonesia calling for Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, the Christian governor of Jakarta to be put to death for blasphemy because he pointed out Muslim religious leaders were using Quran verses to influence Muslims into voting against him. I could continue but I think I've made my point.

The third sentence I agree with. The final, I don't. I feel Islam with its emphasis on submission and excessive devotion to tradition encourages social trends towards authoritarianism and repressive governments, it encourages a lack of respect for the rights of religious minorities - witness the ongoing persecution of Copts in Egypt, the plight of Ahmadis in Pakistan & Zoroastrians in Iran etc

 

[J2hapydna]

I have never directly ask you for any help.

What is wrong in raiding your house and burning your Quran?

Clearly Islam has failed to teach you the first thing about ethics of right and wrong.

Some people lack empathy. It's not, in my opinion, the fault of some religion not teaching him something. In the Islamic world he had the choice of adopting Sufi Islam, Ethiopian Islam, Sir Syedan Deist or rationalist Islam, Ismaili Islam, Ahmadi Islam, submitter Islam etc.

He has chosen an intolerant version of understanding that was very popular profitable and encouraged during the 80s and 90s probably because it agrees with his marginal personality.

 

[Notanumber]

How can choice be equated with Islam?

 

[sayak83]

Some people lack empathy. It's not, in my opinion, the fault of some religion not teaching him something. In the Islamic world he had the choice of adopting Sufi Islam, Ethiopian Islam, Sir Syedan Deist or rationalist Islam, Ismaili Islam, Ahmadi Islam, submitter Islam etc.

He has chosen an intolerant version of understanding that was very popular profitable and encouraged during the 80s and 90s probably because it agrees with his marginal personality.

Could you provide me with statistics regarding what fraction of the islamic world believes in which school of Islamic thought and their degree of openness/tolerance? I have also opened a thread in the Religious Debates section analyzing the saying in the Quran properly. You are welcome to contribute.

 

[J2hapydna]

Yes.
If people are doing good things by smashing the idols,
Then people are doing good things by burning the quran.

In fact I propose that for every smashed idol, one quran should be burnt. And the good will multiply without bound.

That would make sense

 

[J2hapydna]

How can choice be equated with Islam?

Islam is a Din which is bigger than the western idea of a religion. The concept of Din doesn't really exist in the west. So many westerners try to fit Islam into a box in which it really doesn't fit. In realiy Islam is not a single religion, but a collection of several religions or madhabs and even sharias, some more peaceful than others. It has always been this way from the beginning since the days of Muhammad the prophet (MP)

Islam is really a family of religions not a single religion. For example Islam doesn't have a Pope like figure. Similarly, all Muslims don't believe in the same books of sharia. However, a religion by definition has to unify around the same books or a unifying figure. Once westerners recognize this reality about Islam they can discuss Islam more reasonably. Otherwise they end up feeding the trolls in my opinion

 

[J2hapydna]

Could you provide me with statistics regarding what fraction of the islamic world believes in which school of Islamic thought and their degree of openness/tolerance? I have also opened a thread in the Religious Debates section analyzing the saying in the Quran properly. You are welcome to contribute.

In Saudi Arabia my guess is 15 % are Shia. So a significant number of Saudis don't even believe in the books of the Sharia that many westerners think define Islam. In Yemen there is a civil War raging between Zaidis and wahabis (both are Sunni, but don't have the exact same books). So 50% believe in different leaders and different books in Yemen. In Iraq the Shia are a majority so don't believe in the sharia books.

Similarly, Islam in Ethiopia is Sunni, but evolved separately from the Arabs under a different figure, Najashi rather than Umayyads. so different, even though the books are the same

Similarly Sufi Islam has historically been very popular among people of Pakistan and India. In addition, rationalists such as Sir Syed became very powerful figures in India too. There is also 5-10% of Muslims in India and Pakistan are Shia

Unfortunately, after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan it became financially lucrative to join the violent jihadis and wage war on the Russians. The west looked the other way as Saudis radicalized the Muslim world by pumping million of dollars and encouraged the demonizing of non Muslims in newly opened schools (madrasas) so they would seek martyrdom in OUR fight against the Russians. Those who opposed the war on religious grounds and sought peace were socially and economically marginalized.

Once that war was won the propaganda continued and began to target other non Muslims such as Jews and Christians.

Then, there is Iran which is mostly Shia. So they don't believe in the Sharia books.

Then there is Turkey, Sunni with the same books, but Hanafi Turkish leaders (Caliphs) modified Sunni laws in the age of the Ottomans. So different. Sufi Islam is also very common in Turkey.

 

[Rival]

In Saudi Arabia my guess is 30% are Shia.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Ahem.