Islam: The Religion of Peace

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Sorry Fred, but when I think of Islam, I think of violent invasions in 600AD that wiped out civilisation after civilisation, not in the name of money - as was the case with European conquest, but in the name of Allah.

Hmmmmmm, just a thought, but I believe the 16th Century colonisation of the New World by Spain and Portugal in particular could be viewed similarly. Here is some more detailed information on the subject.

Interesting topic [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Mouse, with all respect Christianity had been around 1500 years by the time these events took place. The faith was used as a means of justification and motivation by those in Political power. Look at the Popes division of the New World! What is a spiritual leader doing making a political division of the world? The Protestant movement was in full sway. Christians at the time were well aware of the evils of the Politically influenced behemoth the Catholic Church had become.

However, Islam was violent AT IT"S INCEPTION. Muhammad, the transcriber of the Qu'ran as I stated was a conqueror, killer and military leader.

Neither Jesus nor any of the 13 apostles went to war. All of them except for Judas were excecuted by Rome. The way the two faiths developed was totally different. Christians were persecuted from inception until Constantines reign. Muslims persecuted others from inception to this day. Very very different.

[ 12-21-2002, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Mouse]

Valid points, Yorick. There are just a couple of things that might be worth further thought. Just because Mohammed was a military man does not exclude him from having spiritual insight. It is conceivable that those who have witnessed the horror of human conflict are best placed to teach on how to end it.

Also, to make the bald statement Christians were persecuted from inception until Constantines reign. Muslims persecuted others from inception to this day. Very very different. might be misconstrued as indicating that you are asserting that ALL muslims are actively involved in the persecution of others. I'm sure that was not your intention.

As far as I'm concerned, as an agnostic, I tend to judge people, as individuals by their actions.

Finally, before I butt out of this topic for good, here is a hideously biassed site that nevertheless has some thought provoking "facts".

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Mouse: Finally, before I butt out of this topic for good, here is a hideously biassed site that nevertheless has some thought provoking "facts".

As you said, hideously biased. but it makes it all the easier to see how there are so many sides to this discussion. There are the peaceful adherants to christianity (of whom I might cite Yorick as an example), and there are the brutal (hmmm, draw a name out of a hat, let's say the Croation Catholic-run extermination camp director 'Ante Pavelic' as an example). The same sorts of examples might apply to any other 'organized religion'. It would appear as to how each individual interprets and excercises the teachings portrayed by the texts of their religion that determines the overall actions of the faithful. Maybe? It's a possibility at least...

Now of course, the issue may be in whether the actual teachings and messages of the texts promotes violence or not. But the thing here is that there is just as much in the christian bible that could be taken as an incitement or justification of violence, and has been done so in the past by various 'inquisitive' groups. Both religions could be attempting to direct humanity in the same direction of peace, or the same direction of savage conflict, depending on how one wants to interpret their words. You have to want peace to find it. Just as you can use the words of religious texts as a justification of violent persecution, if such brutality is your self-determined goal.

[Yorick]

Mouse, a Christian killing in the name of Jesus is in direct contradiction to the teachings and more importantly, the living example of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. If a Pope declares a war, it is without any precedent in Jesus or the Apostles actions. To find any sort of justification for a war, a Christian must go to the old testament.

A shady proposition, because Christians are living under the new testament, not the old. Like an amendment to a constitution, the New Testament overrides the old if there is a seeming contradiction between the two.

On the other hand, if a Muslim Caliph declares a war, it has precedence in the actions of Muhammad, and in his teachings. You CAN find justification and encouragement of war and Martyrdom in the Qu'ran and in the Hadith.

Need I point out that the first example in the post you cited was in 315AD? 300 odd years after the Christian Church was started.

More than enough time for inconsistency between Jesus teachings and peoples actions in the name of Jesus to creep in.

The key words here are inconsistencies with teachings.

It is a simple issue to look through Jesus teaching and notice hypocrisy in a person claiming to follow him, yet killing people who hit him on the cheek for example.

You can do the same thing with Islam. When you see a child blow themself up, the mother and father claim that they are proud and honoured that their child has become a martyr for Allah, when you hear the Palestinian Imams sing similar praises, it is a simple matter toi go and check the Qu'ran to find similar inconsistencies with the teachings.

What you will find is that in all the Qu'ran, being killed while fighting in the name of Allah is the only assurance of salvation mentioned.

This is the point I'm making, and the reason why we have a problem.

It all makes sense. Without understanding that mindset, the violence is "insane" "unthinkable" and "mad". How do we stop something we don't understand? Suicide terrorists are unspeakably evil and mad. Right?

Or are they pursuing a course of action that within their worldview will give them eternal bliss in heaven?

The battle as the bible puts it, is not one of Flesh and Blood, but spirit. Peoples minds and souls.

To create lasting peace in an individual - and thus with a collection of people - it is not enough to simply change an external situation. An inner transformation of perception and spirit must take place. This is why Jesus died, and why he didn't simply set up a Jewish kingdom that say kicked out the Romans. (To the chagrin of the Zealots)

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: Valid points, Yorick. There are just a couple of things that might be worth further thought. Just because Mohammed was a military man does not exclude him from having spiritual insight. It is conceivable that those who have witnessed the horror of human conflict are best placed to teach on how to end it.

Thanks Mouse. Just thought I'd comment on the difference between witnessing and perpetrating or instigating horror.

Have you read Muhammads teachings Mouse? There is no recipe for peace in them. There are commands to live in peace followed by instructions on how to wage war etc. but no recipe for peace.

Jesus, gives examples and instructions on how to live at peace with people.

1.Do not retaliate. Break the cycle of hate and revenge by turning the other cheek.

2.Love your enemy. Note it does not say "say nice stuff to your enemy" or "smile at them" both merely external commands. He said LOVE YOUR ENEMY:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

This is an inner transformation. It acknowledges the choice aspect of love. It's a recipe for peace.

[ 12-21-2002, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: Also, to make the bald statement Christians were persecuted from inception until Constantines reign. Muslims persecuted others from inception to this day. Very very different. might be misconstrued as indicating that you are asserting that ALL muslims are actively involved in the persecution of others. I'm sure that was not your intention.

That indeed was NOT my intention. If I'd meant 'all Muslims', I would have said "All Muslims....blah blah" I think that's called 'reading something between the lines Mouse.

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: Valid points, Yorick. There are just a couple of things that might be worth further thought. Just because Mohammed was a military man does not exclude him from having spiritual insight. It is conceivable that those who have witnessed the horror of human conflict are best placed to teach on how to end it.

Thanks Mouse. Just thought I'd comment on the difference between witnessing and perpetrating or instigating horror.

Have you read Muhammads teachings Mouse? There is no recipe for peace in them. There are commands to live in peace followed by instructions on how to wage war etc. but no recipe for peace.[/QUOTE]Excellent stuff, Yorick. You've been bringing up all the same points I was going to bring up today on my day off. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It's interesting to note that just about everything in the Koran relating with peace has to do with relating to fellow muslims. A muslim has no obligation to be civil or peaceful to non-muslims.

Also, many people here are arguing from a western perspective, and believe that everyone thinks the same way they do. Easterners in general, and muslims in particular, just don't think like us with our judeo-christian society influencing us.

[Paladin2000]

Originally posted by skywalker: Isn't it the Buddists that have nothing in their sacred writings about conquest in the name of their religion? I think I heard something about this months ago on NPR. It seems all other religions have something about violence towards their enemy in them whether it is in the past or is current. Mark

Nope. Buddhists are peaceful loving bunch. We are taught that taking live is a sin no matter the cause and all criminals are judged and reincarnated as lower lifefoms.

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Paladin2000: quote: Originally posted by skywalker: Isn't it the Buddists that have nothing in their sacred writings about conquest in the name of their religion? I think I heard something about this months ago on NPR. It seems all other religions have something about violence towards their enemy in them whether it is in the past or is current. Mark

Nope. Buddhists are peaceful loving bunch. We are taught that taking live is a sin no matter the cause and all criminals are judged and reincarnated as lower lifefoms.[/QUOTE]Are you sure you read that right? It looks to me like he's agreeing with you.

Originally posted by Lanesra: [/qb]

Is this where you're talking about ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/no...ews/190578.stm[/QUOTE]

Yep could be one I was talking about...wasn't the specific one I was talking about but it could be.

I never claimed the US was perfect [img]smile.gif[/img] especially not our legal system but occasionally our majority wins out and we kill the human waste. Hence Donut pointing out..."Some countries still have the death penalty".

Edit: Unlike some more enlightened european countries at least the US (and the UK) is trying to do something about the whole muslim terrorist threat other than talk them to death or to appease them.

[ 12-21-2002, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]