What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

[Notanumber]

How would we differentiate it from the other Abrahamic ones who did it first?

Do those others still have it as part of their rulebook?

 

[J2hapydna]

In these types of debates, one can tell lies by omitting certain facts without making a false statement of facts

I'm a rationalist and believe that certain people with high IQs and years of training can look at all the facts and make better decisions in their fields than the average average untrained person. Consequently, I would much rather trust a panel of high IQ doctors and nutritionists on heath matters. Similarly I would much rather believe a panel of high IQ engineers on how to build a piece of equipment or a machine than putting such things to some populist vote. So, I see no reason why I wouldnt trust Economists and social scientists to make the right decisions rather than some populist vote. In other words, I'm really not interested in one step angry populist thinkers who say we should adopt a certain policy because this is what for example people do in the Middle East to minorities etc. Why would I want to do what they do in the ME, when I know those civilizations are irrational and inefficient?

I don't see the world as divided between between white and non whites or Christians and Muslims etc. I see the world as divided between rational and irrational people, between those who can follow the advice of rational people and those who can't.

Finally, I'm not some bleeding heart liberal. I don't think we are tuff enough on Islamists. I would deport Muslims (or any other) if they cannot obey our rational secular laws and don't understand our concept of civil liberties / pluralism that are essential for a highly functioning modern economy. We should also be very tuff with ISIS. At the same time, we should use our best and most well trained minds to engage with their best and brightest minds to help them find rational secular solutions too. However, we should also be equally tuff on our own unbalanced, paranoid irrational fringe. I think that is what our governments are doing and that is what you are perceiving.

Islam is a cancer that should have been cut out before it spread.

I don't think deportation is that easy, J2hapydna.

You should know better that Islam, like Christianity is not tie to one nation or one race; because both religions will convert anyone who accept the respective religions, regardless of nationality or race. Like Christianity starting in Palestine, Islam may have started in the Middle East, in Arabia, but it had spread beyond the boundaries.

So violent radical Muslims, such as the Islamists, like ISIS, can be Americans, British, French, Chineses, etc.

So how do any country deport their own non-Middle Easterner or non-Arab citizens, who have converted to Islam, and worse, become "radicalised"?

If they are citizens we have to watch them closely just as we watch any violent ultra right wing fascist group. It is a constant struggle and people have to stay vigilant.

 

[J2hapydna]

Do those others still have it as part of their rulebook?

Some still do such as the ultra right wing Nationalists i.e. the KKK etc. It was not that long ago when they were politically dominant. These people are now supporting the new president of the US whose father is said to have been sympathetic to their cause.

Also, are you interested in encouraging followers of "Islam" to adopt a different rule book ? I've given you several examples of Islamic movements that don't use the Islamic Trinity described in your videos. These are people who keep their distance from the Orthodox Shariaists. However, you still seem to insist on lumping all Muslims together under the banner of "Islam". Why is that?

 

[Notanumber]

Some still do such as the ultra right wing Nationalists i.e. the KKK etc. It was not that long ago when they were politically dominant. These people are now supporting the new president of the US whose father is said to have been sympathetic to their cause.

Also, are you interested in encouraging followers of "Islam" to adopt a different rule book ? I've given you several examples of Islamic movements that don't use the Islamic Trinity described in your videos. These are people who keep their distance from the Orthodox Shariaists. However, you still seem to insist on lumping all Muslims together under the banner of "Islam". Why is that?

Do you have a link to the KKK’s rulebook?

BTW, I was asking about the other Abrahamic ones who did it first when I replied to Kelly’s post.

 

[J2hapydna]

Do you have a link to the KKK’s rulebook?

BTW, I was asking about the other Abrahamic ones who did it first when I replied to Kelly’s post.

In my opinion, the Islamists and the ultra Nationalist right wing Christians literally derive their rulebooks from the same watering hole -the Justinian code. History and Theology: On the Justinian Code

The primitive Umayyad Arabs adopted the values of the Byzantine leadership after conquering the Byzantine Empire. MP had taught that Islam was a continuation of what JC taught, so the psychopath Umayyads, without really knowing what MP or JC were teaching, adopted the values of the Justinian code promulgated by their predecessor, the other psychopath in this saga, Heraclius.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

How would we differentiate it from the other Abrahamic ones who did it first?

Islam openly endorses and celebrates the slavery of man in relation to God. Islam, after all, means 'submission'.

 

[allfoak]

What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

 

[gnostic]

Any religion that places conditions on "peace", isn't really a "religion of peace".

Now I can understand any country taxing their own citizens. And I can also understand any religion collecting voluntary "tithes" from only their own believers (followers, converts).

But Islam is the only religion that demand taxes from non-believers (non-Muslims), the jizya, and such taxes are not voluntary. And that tax is the condition for peace.

This tax or jizya is similar to conquered kingdom or conquered nation paying tributes to invaders.

And the only way to avoid paying this tax is for non-Muslims to convert. Hence, the jizya is a form of compulsion.

And the "no compulsion" was not used when Muhammad's army had lay siege to the town of Ta'if in 630, after the surrender of Mecca. Ta'if was attacked because back in 622 or 623, when Muhammad asked that he and his followers to be accepted as refugees, the people of Ta'if refused. So the attack upon this town was an act of revenge.

When Ta'if surrendered, they asked that be able to keep their pagan religion as term of their surrender, Muhammad rejected this term. So conversions were forced upon the people of Ta'if.

So the Qur'an verse that say there is "no compulsion" in Islam, is nothing more than a big fat lie.

And Muhammad is revealed as nothing more than a hypocrite who cannot follow his religion's own rules of "no compulsion".

Islam is definitely not a religion of peace.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We cannot fight this war without the support of civilized nations. They are not going to join and help us if they think we are bigots in my opinion.

What war?

 

[J2hapydna]

Any religion that places conditions on "peace", isn't really a "religion of peace".

Now I can understand any country taxing their own citizens. And I can also understand any religion collecting voluntary "tithes" from only their own believers (followers, converts).

But Islam is the only religion that demand taxes from non-believers (non-Muslims), the jizya, and such taxes are not voluntary. And that tax is the condition for peace.

This tax or jizya is similar to conquered kingdom or conquered nation paying tributes to invaders.

And the only way to avoid paying this tax is for non-Muslims to convert. Hence, the jizya is a form of compulsion.

And the "no compulsion" was not used when Muhammad's army had lay siege to the town of Ta'if in 630, after the surrender of Mecca. Ta'if was attacked because back in 622 or 623, when Muhammad asked that he and his followers to be accepted as refugees, the people of Ta'if refused. So the attack upon this town was an act of revenge.

When Ta'if surrendered, they asked that be able to keep their pagan religion as term of their surrender, Muhammad rejected this term. So conversions were forced upon the people of Ta'if.

So the Qur'an verse that say there is "no compulsion" in Islam, is nothing more than a big fat lie.

And Muhammad is revealed as nothing more than a hypocrite who cannot follow his religion's own rules of "no compulsion".

Islam is definitely not a religion of peace.

.

Among peaceful Muslims, such as Sufis, Islam means anti-extremism; and Islam is not regarded as a religion but a Din- a family of religions that shuns extremism.

When Islam is not a religion, but Din, the taxes are paid by followers of all religions but the state imposes no state religion as was the case in the Axumite Empire

Unfortunately, after MP and the Rashidun passed away, political power among Arabs went into the hands of extremists. These leaders were descendants of the pagan ruler of Mecca who had attempted to assassinate MP and made war on him. MP showed them clemency as was his nature. It was the same with the people in Taif. They had ridiculed and violently opposed MP. Then they got to define Islam in their own image as a religion.

To peaceful Muslims, to let the people of Taif remain pagans would be like saying the Nazi party and its leaders should have been allowed to go free and be allowed to remain Nazis after WWII. It wasn't paganism, but the type of paganism they were following that was the problem. Just as it isn't monotheism, but the type of monotheism ISIS practices that is the problem

 

[J2hapydna]

I can also understand any religion collecting voluntary "tithes" from only their own believers (followers, converts)

The Umayyads confused Islam with their religion to extract more money from Jews and Christians who shouldn't have been required to pay Jizya . They were psychopaths who violently opposed MP until the very end and didn't exhibit any real understanding of the message of clemency that MP was teaching. It's better to look at the Axumite Empire to understand how MP expected Islam to be practiced

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

.Unfortunately, after MP and the Rashidun passed away, political power among Arabs went into the hands of extremists. These leaders were descendants of the pagan ruler of Mecca who had attempted to assassinate MP and made war on him. MP showed them clemency as was his nature. It was the same with the people in Taif. They had ridiculed and violently opposed MP. Then they got to define Islam in their own image as a religion.

To peaceful Muslims, to let the people of Taif remain pagans would be like saying the Nazi party and its leaders should have been allowed to go free and be allowed to remain Nazis after WWII. It wasn't paganism, but the type of paganism they were following that was the problem. Just as it isn't monotheism, but the type of monotheism ISIS practices that is the problem

First - I'm going to need to see reliable sources; both on your claim as to whom these leaders were descended from and for the claim their ancestors tried to have Muhammad assassinated.

Second - Of course the people of Ta'if rejected Muhammad. He had just spent ten years or more slandering the religious beliefs & practises of Mecca. A whole decade saying 'your ways are false!'. Why on earth would they want that in their city? Why should they tolerate it? Would Muslims - then or now - tolerate such things or would they act similarly to the way Ta'if's citizens acted?

Third - I invoke Godwin's Law.

Fourth - Your comparison to Nazism is nowhere near being valid. Mecca was a religiously diverse place - with Pagans, Christians, Jews & probably Zoroastrians living together. The only intolerant party in this situation were the Muslims - my proof? The Muslims turned Mecca into a Muslim-only city and destroyed the sacred places of those who kept the old gods. The only way Muslims come out of this looking anything resembling good is due to Muslim revisionism of history. And even that doesn't leave Muhammad and his followers smelling like a basket of roses. Oh, and it wasn't the Pagans who extinguished an entire Jewish tribe. The Nazi comparison, while still very heavily flawed, sticks far more firmly to Muhammad & his followers than to the Meccans.

Fifth - Muhammad declared war on the Meccans by raiding their trade caravans during a sacred month. He started hostilities. It's not self-defence as he was not being attacked by Mecca in Medina.

Sixth - If the Meccans & Ta'if were 'Nazis' then so was Muhammad. Unless you've forgotten, Muhammad was of the Quraysh.

 

[J2hapydna]

Islam is the only religion that demand taxes from non-believers (non-Muslims), the jizya, and such taxes are not voluntary. And that tax is the condition for peace.

Secularism also demands payment of taxes from followers of all religions whether they believe in secularism or not. Those who don't believe in secular ism have to be humiliated into paying what they don't want to pay

Also, Islam isn't a religion, it's a Din, just as secularism isn't a religion

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do those others still have it as part of their rulebook?

I can still read about it in the bible, so, yeah, really ...

 

[gnostic]

Secularism also demands payment of taxes from followers of all religions whether they believe in secularism or not. Those who don't believe in secular ism have to be humiliated into paying what they don't want to pay

Also, Islam isn't a religion, it's a Din, just as secularism isn't a religion

Secularism is not a religion. It is not even a political party or government or political leader.

You don't understand what secularism is, J2hapydna.

It is a political-social principle that prevent religion imposing religious belief upon everyone, such as religious law in political and legal interference that will deny individual's rights.

If you are citizen of secular country, then every citizens, regardless if they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, deists, etc, they will all get the same political rights (e.g. to vote in election) and the same legal rights (e.g. legal protection and legal representation).

For instance, if two office administrators, one Muslim and one atheist, both of them are getting pay the same salaries and both are citizens of...say New Zealand, for example. When a election come along, both of them get to vote. The atheist's vote would not receive any more special treatment than the Muslim guy. Similarly, a Muslim would receive no special treatment than his atheist coworker in the election.

Furthermore, since they get pay the same salary amount, their taxes are the same. Both Muslim and atheist workers will not get any special treatments for being an atheist or a Muslim.

Do you understand this?

They have equal rights in New Zealand.

Now let say we go to a different country, where there are larger majority of Muslims, like Egypt.

Before secularism in Egypt, the Coptic Christians don't have same equal rights as the Muslim Arabs, they had to pay jizya, and despite living in their own country, they were treated as second citizens.

This continued until secularism arrived, in the 19th century. They no longer have to pay jizya, and receive some if not equal benefits as citizens in political and legal protections and representations.

But everything reversed from the 1950s and onwards, losing many of their rights. It was still secular state, but the Copts became second citizens again, because of the pro-Arab and pro-Muslims policies.

Their life worsened, and they were persecuted and discriminated for being Copts and for being Christians.

Here, Egypt is not truly secular, but with the Muslim brotherhood now in powers, the Coptic Christians still don't have the same rights as Muslims, and still treated as second citizens.

True secularism doesn't mean pro-atheism, it simply mean that all citizens should have equal rights, politically, legally and socially.

Each citizen has the rights to choose to follow the religion of their choice, or not follow one at all, be that he or she be a Muslim, Christian, atheist, or whatever.

Secularism that works in New Zealand, don't work in Egypt, because those in powers are mostly Muslims. And the Muslim Brotherhood are chipping away at the Copt's rights, while inciting violence upon the Copts, like burning their homes, businesses and churches, and like denying their rights to build new churches or repair existing churches.

The Copts don't want independence or special treatments, just equal rights, and Muslims since days of the earliest caliphates, still treat non-Muslims as second citizens, despite the Copts being in Egypt centuries before the arrival of Arab Muslims in the 7th century.

Let face it, J2hapydna, Muslims don't know how to treat non-Muslims equally, even in a secular state. Muslims always want special treatments and demand more rights than their fellow citizens, that because Muhammad was the same way. Secular states can never really work when Muslims are in powers, because they have the habits of feeling more privileged than others.

 

[sovietchild]

First - I'm going to need to see reliable sources; both on your claim as to whom these leaders were descended from and for the claim their ancestors tried to have Muhammad assassinated.

Second - Of course the people of Ta'if rejected Muhammad. He had just spent ten years or more slandering the religious beliefs & practises of Mecca. A whole decade saying 'your ways are false!'. Why on earth would they want that in their city? Why should they tolerate it? Would Muslims - then or now - tolerate such things or would they act similarly to the way Ta'if's citizens acted?

Third - I invoke Godwin's Law.

Fourth - Your comparison to Nazism is nowhere near being valid. Mecca was a religiously diverse place - with Pagans, Christians, Jews & probably Zoroastrians living together. The only intolerant party in this situation were the Muslims - my proof? The Muslims turned Mecca into a Muslim-only city and destroyed the sacred places of those who kept the old gods. The only way Muslims come out of this looking anything resembling good is due to Muslim revisionism of history. And even that doesn't leave Muhammad and his followers smelling like a basket of roses. Oh, and it wasn't the Pagans who extinguished an entire Jewish tribe. The Nazi comparison, while still very heavily flawed, sticks far more firmly to Muhammad & his followers than to the Meccans.

Fifth - Muhammad declared war on the Meccans by raiding their trade caravans during a sacred month. He started hostilities. It's not self-defence as he was not being attacked by Mecca in Medina.

Sixth - If the Meccans & Ta'if were 'Nazis' then so was Muhammad. Unless you've forgotten, Muhammad was of the Quraysh.

Why do you say Muhammad started hostilities? I thought it was Mecca pagans who started hostilities.

 

[Notanumber]

I can still read about it in the bible, so, yeah, really ...

Do you have a link to any mainstream religion or ideology that currently condones slavery?

 

[sovietchild]

Do you have a link to any mainstream religion or ideology that currently condones slavery?

Islam condones usury. Does that counts?

 

[J2hapydna]

You don't understand what secularism is, J2hapydna.

Did you understand the alternate definition of Islam as a DIN (not a religion) as practiced in the Axumite Empire and understood as anti-extremism by Sufis etc.? It is a definition that is different than the name of a religion adopted by the Umayyads. It seems you don't from the way you are using it

As far as secularism is concerned, I have a pretty good understanding of it and its evolution . Did you miss my posts in which I stated that my thinking aligns with rationalist, deist and atheist thinkers such as Sir Syed, Aver-roes, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Bertrand Russell?

 

[gnostic]

Did you understand the alternate definition of Islam as a DIN (not a religion) as practiced in the Axumite Empire and understood as anti-extremism by Sufis etc.? It is a definition that is different than the religion adopted by the Umayyads and the way you are using it

As far as secularism is concerned, I have a pretty good understanding of it and its evolution . Did you miss my posts in which I stated that my thinking aligns with rationalist, deist and atheist thinkers such as Sir Syed, Aver-roes, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Bertrand Russell?

There is one definition to secularism, if that's what you are talking about, which is a "separation of state and religion".

And I cannot comment on the Axumite empire because I don't know enough about it. And I cannot comment on Sufism or the Sufis too, because I don't know much about their history.

Surely, you don't expect me make comments on things that I have no knowledge or limited knowledge?

As to the Umayyad caliphate, it was never "secular state" or "secular empire". It was theocratic empire, as the one before it, and the successor caliphate afterward.