What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

[Shad]

True. Our government got very pissy when people started marking 'Jedi' as their religion of choice on the countries census though. Whilst that happened in many countries around the world, it REALLY took off here. Almost 70,000 people listed Jedi as their religion. The rumour (probably untrue) was that legally the government would officially recognise any religion receiving 10,000 'votes' as being legitimate.
New Zealand and Britain had the same thing happen at even higher levels.

There was mention of a possible fine at some point, but given the nature of the census, and of religious identification itself (as you say, there's an element of personal identification) I think it would have been a disaster if they went that route.

Order 66 damn it not 67!

 

[J2hapydna]

sayak 83 said

How can Islam be considered a religion of peace when it does advocate both violence and war under many circumstances and the God it worships in turn often use violence in His acts? There are religions of peace....jainisim, buddhism, Amish etc. who completely and totally eschew violence and forbids it's practitioners from violence under any circumstance ( some even against animals). So , sorry, your religion does not qualify.

Now that we know that you consider many religions including, Baha'i and some Orthodox forms of Judaism etc to be a part of Islam, how do you expect a member of these religions to react to you saying that her religion isn't peaceful? Especially after she has already told you that she regards the forms of Islam that emerged with the Umayyads and some other major sects to not be peaceful and agrees that Islam cannot generally be characterized as peaceful. Do you see my point?

In any case, how about you? How were you raised? Do you believe in the existence of gods/god?

 

[J2hapydna]

R.e. JWs and Unitarians - yes and yes.

Socially and politically they function as Shias, and that's their own identity. They're sponsored by Iran in proxy wars.

Socially and politically they are not one cohesive force. In addition, many moderate Sunnis all over the world would probably find it difficult to socially and politically align themselves with the wahabi in Saudi Arabia. I find it more interesting how Saudi Arabia bombs the hell out of Yemen but can't seem to lift a finger against ISIS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The interpretation of these verses in my opinion depends on how one chooses to understand the Quran. Islam is a Din or tradition - as such, an amalgamation of several closely related religions. It isn't a single religion.

As a westerner it might be hard to understand for you, but notice that Islam doesn't have a Pope; and has different sects such as Shia and Sunni that have different Hadith books. So islam is made of lots of religions. For example, The Ethiopian, Indian Sir Syedan deist and Shia Ismaili doesn't believe in the same Islamic history and laws as the orthodox Sunni or Hasan Ashari Shia etc

Respectfully, it's not difficult to understand (in English, admittedly, not Arabic):

"Fight Jews and Christians until they become Muslims or pay the Jizya (extortion tax).

 

[J2hapydna]

Respectfully, it's not difficult to understand (in English, admittedly, not Arabic):

"Fight Jews and Christians until they become Muslims or pay the Jizya (extortion tax).

I would say, one has to look at the context.

For example suppose the Muslims in U.K. decided they do not need to pay taxes to the crown and took up arms against the government. Then would the U.K. government be justified in saying fight the Muslims until they submit and pay their fair share of taxes or change their religion and pay their fair share of taxes? I would say yes, the government would be justified.

So I would suggest that you examine the Quran more thoroughly to see if these verses required paying of Jizya from all Christians for all time or some in the age of MP who didn't want to pay any taxes and wanted to continue fighting the Muslims.

I would say so the same with verses that appear to suggest Muslims can't be friends with Jews and Christians and killing those who don't accept Islam etc

I would suggest examine history and look to see if there are other verses that suggest friendship was forbidden in a particular time when peace was offered, but rejected by Jews and Christians and who had picked up arms against Muslims. Then, were friendships temporarily banned with a suggestion that these are temporary measures that maybe rescinded after peace was established.

Personally, after reading history of the period, I'm comfortable in believing that Jizya, restrictions on friendships and war against non Muslims were all temporary measures against those who had started wars against Muslims and not blanket rules that applied to all non Muslims for all time

Good luck

 

[sayak83]

sayak 83 said

Now that we know that you consider many religions including, Baha'i and some Orthodox forms of Judaism etc to be a part of Islam, how do you expect a member of these religions to react to you saying that her religion isn't peaceful? Especially after she has already told you that she regards the forms of Islam that emerged with the Umayyads and some other major sects to not be peaceful and agrees that Islam cannot generally be characterized as peaceful. Do you see my point?

In any case, how about you? How were you raised? Do you believe in the existence of gods/god?

Orthodox Judaism does not consider Quran to be the word of God (that a specific person believes that is a different matter). Furthermore, Quran clearly says that Muhammad is the last prophet. Therefore someone who believes Quran to be the word of God cannot consistently say there was a prophet after him (as in Bahai).
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

However I am happy with you saying that orthodox Islam cannot be called a religion of peace.

I do not expect any hostile reaction whatsoever. I am a Hindu and do not consider Hinduism to be a religion of peace. Judaism is certainly not one given Exodus and the conquest of Canaan etc. Neither is Sikhism, and Christianity too has found no contradiction between being a Christian and serving in the army or bearing arms for instance.

I am a Hindu, though I have greater affinity to rational, empirical and philosophical strands of Hinduism (and Buddhism) than devotional ones.

 

[Kirran]

I am a Hindu, though I have greater affinity to rational, empirical and philosophical strands of Hinduism (and Buddhism) than devotional ones.

Do you reckon one or the other strand is more inclined to pacifism, if I may detour?

 

[sayak83]

Do you reckon one or the other strand is more inclined to pacifism, if I may detour?

Vaisnavism appears to be very pacific (for reasons that are beyond my understanding though...)
Similarly Gandhian version of Hinduism is pacific. Of course individual people are encouraged the path of non-violence as an integral part of spiritual advancement.
In general Hinduism accepts the validity of just wars (Ramayana, Mahabharata) as well as upholds the validity of warfare as a profession for the rulers (Kshatriyas). Furthermore Brahmins are clearly shown to know and to practice and teach the arts of war. Ahimsa (non-violence) is important and central and people are exhorted to go for ahimsa whenever possible, but even ahimsa should be abandoned when pursuing it causes more harm and suffering than otherwise.

 

[Kirran]

Vaisnavism appears to be very pacific (for reasons that are beyond my understanding though...)
Similarly Gandhian version of Hinduism is pacific. Of course individual people are encouraged the path of non-violence as an integral part of spiritual advancement.
In general Hinduism accepts the validity of just wars (Ramayana, Mahabharata) as well as upholds the validity of warfare as a profession for the rulers (Kshatriyas). Furthermore Brahmins are clearly shown to know and to practice and teach the arts of war. Ahimsa (non-violence) is important and central and people are exhorted to go for ahimsa whenever possible, but even ahimsa should be abandoned when pursuing it causes more harm and suffering than otherwise.

OK, makes sense - but do you reckon there's any particularly higher degree of pacifism to be found in bhakti traditions than elsewhere?

I'm probably a bit of a Gandhian myself

 

[sayak83]

OK, makes sense - but do you reckon there's any particularly higher degree of pacifism to be found in bhakti traditions than elsewhere?

I'm probably a bit of a Gandhian myself

Yes. Bhakti traditions are in general very pacific (especially vaisnavism). However there are historical reports of inter-sectarian violence between various traditions of bhakti as well. Excessive zeal often causes this.
Hinduism is not a commandment based religion. Instruction manuals are there, but are considered useless if you do not have insight through spiritual growth (bit like trying to drive using google maps but with your eyes closed!). Thus instead of one definitive set of commandments we have multiple manuals from multiple authors in multiple epochs giving their (often different) take on things that proved useful. Gandhi would simply be the latest, a great moral seer who absorbed what he could from the past and rewove from it his own vision of moral activism that suited his own (i.e. our current) age....choosing and active form of peace in a world gone mad with warmongering. I would consider his works to be the latest addition to the Dharma-shastras, to be used discerningly in conjunction with others and my own insight (whatever I have) to decide what i should do in the decisions I make in my life.

 

[Kirran]

Yes. Bhakti traditions are in general very pacific (especially vaisnavism). However there are historical reports of inter-sectarian violence between various traditions of bhakti as well. Excessive zeal often causes this.
Hinduism is not a commandment based religion. Instruction manuals are there, but are considered useless if you do not have insight through spiritual growth (bit like trying to drive using google maps but with your eyes closed!). Thus instead of one definitive set of commandments we have multiple manuals from multiple authors in multiple epochs giving their (often different) take on things that proved useful. Gandhi would simply be the latest, a great moral seer who absorbed what he could from the past and rewove from it his own vision of moral activism that suited his own (i.e. our current) age....choosing and active form of peace in a world gone mad with warmongering. I would consider his works to be the latest addition to the Dharma-shastras, to be used discerningly in conjunction with others and my own insight (whatever I have) to decide what i should do in the decisions I make in my life.

Swami Vivekananda wrote in one of his books about the dangers of excessive zeal! I am sure we could merrily discuss this further, but it would be a sidetrack. Thankyou for your responses, sayak.

 

[J2hapydna]

Orthodox Judaism does not consider Quran to be the word of God (that a specific person believes that is a different matter). Furthermore, Quran clearly says that Muhammad is the last prophet. Therefore someone who believes Quran to be the word of God cannot consistently say there was a prophet after him (as in Bahai).
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation.

Orthodox Judaism actually has no opinion on the authenticity of the Quran as a scripture. Otherwise, do you really think an Orthodox Jewish RABBI in Jerusalem could openly hold such a view if it were forbidden by his congregation? Please investigate before making such statements

Secondly, the Baha'i do consider the Quran to be the word of Allah, their creator. Their Quran is the same as the Orthodox Quran.

So your definition of Muslim has been met by both groups.

As far as how the Orthodox translators disagree with Baha'i translators that is a separate matter. Different sects within religions disagree on interpretations all the time. If staying faithful to how the Orthodoxy interprets the text was an issue for you then you should have revised your definition and included this point. This is why I gave you an opportunity to reconsider your extremely liberal definition.

 

[Shad]

I would say, one has to look at the context.

For example suppose the Muslims in U.K. decided they do not need to pay taxes to the crown and took up arms against the government. Then would the U.K. government be justified in saying fight the Muslims until they submit and pay their fair share of taxes or change their religion and pay their fair share of taxes? I would say yes, the government would be justified.

The UK does not tax people based on their religion. Islam does. That is discrimination.

So I would suggest that you examine the Quran more thoroughly to see if these verses required paying of Jizya from all Christians for all time or some in the age of MP who didn't want to pay any taxes and wanted to continue fighting the Muslims.

Considering there is no context with the verse you are grasping at straws.

I would say so the same with verses that appear to suggest Muslims can't be friends with Jews and Christians and killing those who don't accept Islam etc

Again the verse provides no context as to limit what this verse says.

I would suggest examine history and look to see if there are other verses that suggest friendship was forbidden in a particular time when peace was offered, but rejected by Jews and Christians and who had picked up arms against Muslims. Then, were friendships temporarily banned with a suggestion that these are temporary measures that maybe rescinded after peace was established.

If you know of these sources provide said sources. Otherwise all you are doing is making assertions then shifting your burden of proof to another person to support your assertions for you.

Personally, after reading history of the period, I'm comfortable in believing that Jizya, restrictions on friendships and war against non Muslims were all temporary measures against those who had started wars against Muslims and not blanket rules that applied to all non Muslims for all time

So temporary that is was not removed by Muslim nations until the 19th century under pressure from Europe to modernize.

 

[J2hapydna]

The UK does not tax people based on their religion. Islam does. That is discrimination.



Considering there is no context with the verse you are grasping at straws.



Again the verse provides no context as to limit what this verse says.



If you know of these sources provide said sources. Otherwise all you are doing is making assertions then shifting your burden of proof to another person to support your assertions for you.



So temporary that is was not removed by Muslim nations until the 19th century under pressure from Europe to modernize.

Perhaps you should raise these issues in front of an Orthodox Muslim who believes those versions of events represent Islam

 

[J2hapydna]

The UK does not tax people based on their religion. Islam does. That is discrimination.

I didn't say the U.K. did. Perhaps you should read what I said again

 

[gnostic]

Its not the religion at all. Just like with Christianity, it is a very small subset of the people who 'claim' to practice the religion who need a new brain, or to at least have their current 'brain' violently removed.

I recall clearly, back when Bush Jr. said that we were starting a new war, against religious extremists who wished to harm others and spread terror, no matter where the battlefront took us......I just wondered when we would drop cruise missles and paratroopers into Georgia and Mississippi to wipe out the "Christian" KKK rallies.

Still waiting......

Now that Trump is in power, it is most likely that he will arm kkk with cruise missiles, so they will wipe out all the anti-Trump protesters.

 

[sovietchild]

Now that Trump is in power, it is most likely that he will arm kkk with cruise missiles, so they will wipe out all the anti-Trump protesters.

No way! Is that so?

 

[gnostic]

Do all Europeans have a complete trust in democracy? I am surprised. I was born in the UK, and I do not support liberal democracy as a system, even.

Are the liberals in the U.K. "Conservatives"?

I am asking because in Australia, they are conservatives.

 

[gnostic]

I thought Muhammad was preaching in peaceful ways. I thought that Meccan pegans made sanctions towards Muslims and eventually drove them out of the city.

But then Muhammad took revenge.

The war between Mecca and Muslims only really started when Muhammad raided merchant caravans from 623 to 624, which accumulated with the death of the caravan guards. When Meccans send a force out with the next caravan train, that ended in battle of Badr in 624.

When Muhammad left Mecca in 622 with family and followers, they were not at war yet. War will only start if both sides armed. Muhammad and Muslims were armed when they raided those caravans.

So essentially Muhammad started the war by provoking the Meccans with these raids.

Like or not sovietchild, when send people to raid and rob as act of revenge, then revenge is not "peaceful" act.

And that's the only time he started a war.

Did you know that when Muhammad left Mecca, the first place he sought refuge for himself and his people was at Ta'if in 622. They refused to let them in their town.

Eight years later after Mecca surrendered to Muhammad and his large army in 630, the first place he went to when he went on campaign to invade and convert the rest of Arabia was Ta'if, which he lay siege to.

The attack on the town was revenge for not accepting them as refugees. Tell me who started the war between Muslims and the town of Ta'if?

Muhammad started this battle. And when Ta'if did eventually surrender, they ask for a condition to be keep their pagan religion. Muhammad rejected the condition, so the people of Ta'if were forced to convert.

So the whole notion that Islam don't compel people to convert, is nothing more than a myth.

And the idea that Muslims don't start wars, are also a myth. Attacking caravans and starting a siege in revenge, showed that Islam is not a religion of peace.

 

[gnostic]

But raiding caravans is okay?

I thought they took back what was theirs.

No. They were Meccan trading caravans.

And even if it were theirs, which it wasn't, that's not a reason to kill the driver.

When they left Mecca, their properties were forfeited...true.

But the caravans were different situation, that had nothing to do with losing their homes and what they couldn't bring with them in exile.

These were merchants. They weren't just raiding and robbing caravans going out of Mecca, but also those coming in.

You are just making excuses to justify the raiding and robbing and the killing.

And you are forgetting the Banu Qaynupa. When Muhammad was mediator between two feuding clans in Medina, the Banu Qaynupa sided with one tribe - the Khazraj, while the Banu Nadir sided with the Aws.

Muhammad only favoured the Aws because they were willing to accept Islam, so the Khazraj with the Qaynupa lost.

The Qaynupa were then driven out of Medina, because a very flawed constitution of Medina that highly favoured Muslims. That the real reason why Qaynupa were driven out, and not the alleged killing of Muslim.

The Banu Qaynupa lost their homes and wealth, which Muhammad confiscated all.

You are complaining that Muhammad and Muslims losing properties while in exile, and yet Muhammad did exactly the same thing to the Banu Qaynupa. This is clearly double standard.