• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

sovietchild

Well-Known Member
If you find this ridiculous.

The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist.

Do you find this deserving?

Men and women are given spirit by Odin, sense by Hœnir, and life by Loki upon creation.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
What I believe still doesn't matter. Not much. The problem in your comparison is that you are attributing faith to an infant; my statement is that of creation. You're still not understanding my point, so let me re-word it. What would you say to the claim that when you were born, you were born an Ásatrúar?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You still have to be approved.

1000th.jpg
No you do not. Vast majority of Hindu communities and worships are open to all.
 
Salm and Salam are the root words for the “Islam” which mean peace and tranquility. The importance of peace and tranquility has been pointed to in the Quran numerous times.

The Quran says: “But if the enemy shows a tendency to peace, do thou (also) show a tendency to peace…”

What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

Muslims will tell you that Islam is a religion of peace and if you disagree they will kill you!
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Islam is a rather fragile and brittle set of ideas. It claims its holy book and its profit are both perfect. As we can see in this thread, a true Muslim must defend the perfection of the Quran and Muhammad against all logic and evidence. And for 1300+ years now, this defensive posture has been more violent than not. And of course how can it be any other way? The foundational claims of Islam have the necessity for conflict built into them.
 

J2hapydna

Active Member
Salm and Salam are the root words for the “Islam” which mean peace and tranquility. The importance of peace and tranquility has been pointed to in the Quran numerous times.

The Quran says: “But if the enemy shows a tendency to peace, do thou (also) show a tendency to peace…”

What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?
I think it is wrong because it limits Islam to a religion when
Islam is a Din which is bigger than the idea of a religion. Most westerners don't realize that Islam is not a single religion, but a collection of several religions or madhabs and even sharias. Some are more peaceful than others.

westerners usually have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that Islam is bigger than their idea of a religion. For example Islam doesn't have a Pope or a single authority. Similarly, do Sunni and Shia believe in the same books of sharia? No they don't. So how can these books define THE RELIGION OF ISLAM if the people westerners claim are followers of Islam don't follow the same books and don't follow a single spiritual leader? Yet westerners go about quoting them as if all Muslims believe in them. Once westerners come to grip with this reality they can discuss Islam more reasonably and understand when Islam is a religion of Peace and when it isn't
 
Last edited:
I was married to a lady from Iran, when I say was I mean I became a widower when she died a few years ago, She and her family were Bahais who the muslims who took over Iran in 1979 considered to be infidels, heretics, whatever.
Among the many stories she told me from the first months after Khomeini's revolution, the overthrow of the Shah (who admittedly was an evil yankee puppet) and the rule of the revolutionary guard, there were two in particular that stuck in my mind.
One was that she had a younger sister who had died of meningitis at age 11 and was buried in the Bahai cemetery in Teheran. One Sunday when my wife and her sisters and mother went to visit the grave, it was gone along with the rest of the cemetery. The following week she made enquires to find out what had happened and one of the revolutionary guards told her they didn't want to waste valuable real estate on the corpses of infidels so they had dug up the cemetery and carted the contents to the city garbage dump.
The other story was about her uncle who was a professor at the University in Teheran. He suddenly went missing a few weeks after the Islamic revolution. The family were unable to get information about his whereabouts until there was a knock on the door of his house one evening. Outside were several; bearded young men with the crazy fanatical look in their eyes we often see in photos from that region. One of them handed the lady of the house a piece paper with bill written on it. It was, according to one of the revolutionary guards, to cover the cost of the bullets used to execute her husband - because it was not worthy of the revolution to have to cover the cost of executing infidels and traitors.
No culture that could spawn that kind of behavior can be considered civilized or good or, as suggested in this thread, peace loving.
 

Sakeenah

Well-Known Member
No. There was no violence before this.

Incorrect

Professing faith meant facing ruthless torture and even execution. It was a tribal society so men from the Meccan nobility like Abu Bakr were beaten unconscious in the streets, while slaves like Bilal b. Rabah a and Suhayb b. Sinan were shackled and left in the midday desert sun. Sumayya b. Khayyat was murdered with a spear thrust through her pelvis for refusing to leave Islam.Her son, ‘Ammar b. Yasir was tortured with fire, like many others until he verbally said he would worship gods besides God. Khabbab b. al-Aratt was forced to lie on burning coals and smell his own flesh cooking.

Quraysh increased the prosecution in response to its own frustration and failure in not being able to stop muhammad from preaching.
As for the Prophet he also suffered from abuse,they couldn't kill him because his uncle (pagan)who was from a noble tribe al quraysh protected him. They demonized him, divorced his daughters, exiled and starved his entire clan for three years. As for physical assault, Uqba b. Abi Mu‘ayt strangled him from behind when he prayed in public, ‘Utayba b. Abi Lahab spat at him, and others would beat him unconscious.

Among non muslim and muslim historians the meccan time period(13 years) is known as the period of prosecution, you can look this up.
Conclusion..It really amazes me when people try to claim that the meccans didn't use any violence in the meccan time period and they just 'bullied' muslims in order to make them leave makkah.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
sovietchild said:
The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist."
I can assure you that such a claim is entirely wrong.

Abu Amina Elias • December 3, 2011
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “No one is born except upon natural instinct, then his parents turn him into a Jew or Christian or Magian. As an animal produces their young with perfect limbs, do you see anything defective?”

Abu Huraira said, “Recite the verse if you wish: Direct your face toward the religion, inclining to truth, the nature of Allah upon which he has created the people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah.” (30:30)

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 1292, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2658

Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَا مِنْ مَوْلُودٍ إِلَّا يُولَدُ عَلَى الْفِطْرَةِ فَأَبَوَاهُ يُهَوِّدَانِهِ وَيُنَصِّرَانِهِ وَيُمَجِّسَانِهِ كَمَا تُنْتَجُ الْبَهِيمَةُ بَهِيمَةً جَمْعَاءَ هَلْ تُحِسُّونَ فِيهَا مِنْ جَدْعَاءَ

ثُمَّ قَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ وَاقْرَءُوا إِنْ شِئْتُمْ فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ

1292 صحيح البخاري كتاب الجنائز باب إذا أسلم الصبي فمات هل يصلى عليه وهل يعرض على الصبي الإسلام

2658 صحيح مسلم كتاب القدر معنى كل باب ولادة ولد على الفطرة وحكم موت الكفار الأطفال وأطفال المسلمين

Hadith on Instinct: Everyone has natural instinct to worship one God

The correct translation is "natural instinct". Please
Regards
 

vijeno

Active Member
What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

I am very hesitant to call any religion or ideology, or state or ethnic group, an "X of peace". (whatever X stands for). Or indeed an X of war. Or of justice. Or of anything really.

I honestly could not tell you what a useful definition of "religion of peace" would be. A religion that can only be interpreted in one way, and that one way is peaceful? Well, that *might* perhaps go for Jainism, but starting with buddhism, and way more with the monotheistic religions, this is just obviously not the case, people have fought wars in the name of their respective religion. So we could divide between "true" interpretations and false ones. But then, if we don't just *define* that true === peacful beforehand, how would we know which one is true? Is postmodern christianity truer than medieval christianity? Was Islam in its golden age truer than what is taught today? I could not tell you.

Worldviews are necessarily full of flaws. They have their glorious parts, their not so great ones, and they also contain absolutely abysmal, idiotic, cruel or simply weird bits. (That's precisely why I don't advocate believing in a worldview. It is always better to evaluate every single claim and try to find out what one really thinks is true, not what feels good.) So you cannot have a "religion of peace". Just religions that are comparatively more peaceful, or less cruel, than others.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
sovietchild said:
The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist."


Abu Amina Elias • December 3, 2011
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “No one is born except upon natural instinct, then his parents turn him into a Jew or Christian or Magian. As an animal produces their young with perfect limbs, do you see anything defective?”

Abu Huraira said, “Recite the verse if you wish: Direct your face toward the religion, inclining to truth, the nature of Allah upon which he has created the people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah.” (30:30)

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 1292, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2658

Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَا مِنْ مَوْلُودٍ إِلَّا يُولَدُ عَلَى الْفِطْرَةِ فَأَبَوَاهُ يُهَوِّدَانِهِ وَيُنَصِّرَانِهِ وَيُمَجِّسَانِهِ كَمَا تُنْتَجُ الْبَهِيمَةُ بَهِيمَةً جَمْعَاءَ هَلْ تُحِسُّونَ فِيهَا مِنْ جَدْعَاءَ

ثُمَّ قَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ وَاقْرَءُوا إِنْ شِئْتُمْ فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ

1292 صحيح البخاري كتاب الجنائز باب إذا أسلم الصبي فمات هل يصلى عليه وهل يعرض على الصبي الإسلام

2658 صحيح مسلم كتاب القدر معنى كل باب ولادة ولد على الفطرة وحكم موت الكفار الأطفال وأطفال المسلمين

Hadith on Instinct: Everyone has natural instinct to worship one God

The correct translation is "natural instinct". Please
Regards
Thanks. It is still clearly incorrect, though.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
The highlight of this thread for me was the justification of retaliatory violence in machismo. Nothing like basing your violence in a bit of patriarchal misogynstic gender roles.

Whether or not the narrative indeed is accurate.

I don't see what's extreme about Gandhi's way of doing things, in a dangerous sense. To truly try and "be the change you want to see" is in one sense extreme by definition of course.
 
Last edited:

Upaava

Member
ISIS is fighting with western made weapons. Who created ISIS? And who trained the rebels to attack Russia in 90's?

Did you notice no one made reply to your questions? There are wealthy and powerful people who are constantly fomenting war in the world. They wish to keep us fighting against each other for religious, political or any other reasons they can use. Unfortunately, many, many people have fallen into this trap, being emotionally manipulated to violence.

My brothers and sisters, please wake up and work together, unite against this evil cabal who work against your best interests. Work for peace; work for the traditional moral values of your peoples they are trying to break down. Have faith in the God who has created all of us.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Incorrect

Professing faith meant facing ruthless torture and even execution. It was a tribal society so men from the Meccan nobility like Abu Bakr were beaten unconscious in the streets, while slaves like Bilal b. Rabah a and Suhayb b. Sinan were shackled and left in the midday desert sun. Sumayya b. Khayyat was murdered with a spear thrust through her pelvis for refusing to leave Islam.Her son, ‘Ammar b. Yasir was tortured with fire, like many others until he verbally said he would worship gods besides God. Khabbab b. al-Aratt was forced to lie on burning coals and smell his own flesh cooking.

Quraysh increased the prosecution in response to its own frustration and failure in not being able to stop muhammad from preaching.
As for the Prophet he also suffered from abuse,they couldn't kill him because his uncle (pagan)who was from a noble tribe al quraysh protected him. They demonized him, divorced his daughters, exiled and starved his entire clan for three years. As for physical assault, Uqba b. Abi Mu‘ayt strangled him from behind when he prayed in public, ‘Utayba b. Abi Lahab spat at him, and others would beat him unconscious.

Among non muslim and muslim historians the meccan time period(13 years) is known as the period of prosecution, you can look this up.
Conclusion..It really amazes me when people try to claim that the meccans didn't use any violence in the meccan time period and they just 'bullied' muslims in order to make them leave makkah.
Thanks.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Do you have better ideas?

Yes, I do: Own up to the fact that punching someone is not peaceful. Own up to the fact that launching caravan raids in which murder is committed is not peaceful. Own up to the fact that taking something that isn't yours by force is not peaceful. Own up to the fact that Muhammad was not peaceful when he gained power.


Yes it is imposed by family, however believe it or not, all humans born into this world are aware of God and the knowledge of right and wrong from birth.

No they don't. When a baby is born its brain is so undeveloped that it can't see more than a few inches, it won't have a sense of object permanence for about 1-2 years, and won't have developed memory until about the age of 3. There's literally no way a human baby could have a concept of anything as complex as a god, ethics or morals.
 
Last edited:

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Incorrect

Professing faith meant facing ruthless torture and even execution. It was a tribal society so men from the Meccan nobility like Abu Bakr were beaten unconscious in the streets, while slaves like Bilal b. Rabah a and Suhayb b. Sinan were shackled and left in the midday desert sun. Sumayya b. Khayyat was murdered with a spear thrust through her pelvis for refusing to leave Islam.Her son, ‘Ammar b. Yasir was tortured with fire, like many others until he verbally said he would worship gods besides God. Khabbab b. al-Aratt was forced to lie on burning coals and smell his own flesh cooking.

Quraysh increased the prosecution in response to its own frustration and failure in not being able to stop muhammad from preaching.
As for the Prophet he also suffered from abuse,they couldn't kill him because his uncle (pagan)who was from a noble tribe al quraysh protected him. They demonized him, divorced his daughters, exiled and starved his entire clan for three years. As for physical assault, Uqba b. Abi Mu‘ayt strangled him from behind when he prayed in public, ‘Utayba b. Abi Lahab spat at him, and others would beat him unconscious.

Among non muslim and muslim historians the meccan time period(13 years) is known as the period of prosecution, you can look this up.
Conclusion..It really amazes me when people try to claim that the meccans didn't use any violence in the meccan time period and they just 'bullied' muslims in order to make them leave makkah.

It amazes me when Muslims like to claim that the Meccans were intolerant monsters even though they put up with Muhammad deriding and slandering the Meccans and their forefathers beliefs' for ten years. What amazes me even more is Muslims complaining about these events when to this very day Muslims use this exact same excuse for persecuting & acting like ******** to ex-Muslims & any others who challenge or even mock aspects of Islam and display the exact sort of intolerance they claimed the Meccans once displayed to Muhammad. In fact it's now glaringly obvious you can be murdered in non-Muslim countries for doing this too!
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Islam is focused on law and punishment as well as ensuring that it spreads far and wide. It considers only Muslims to be good and all others to be something lesser. With such ingredients and considering human nature, it's impossible for this organisation to be peaceful. It's no wonder that Muslims have been violent toward others and themselves (sect vs sect) since its beginning.

I think that Buddhism comes closest to being the religion of peace. If I were to rank the main religions of the world in order of peacefulness, Islam would be the last on that list.
 
Top