Clearing up misconceptions about Islam ( the religion ) , and a request . . . . . .

[RoboPig]

And that post, Robopig, just showed how blind you are of knowing the difference between the few exceptions, and the majority. That man in your story was an exception to the rule, just as the Muslim extremists are part of that same execption.

Your ignorant blanketing of all Christians based on a few foolish exceptions of the rule only breeds more intolerance, more hatred based upon a person's individual faith.

i said some christians Contempt. Obviously not all are so ignorant, but a portion are, especially in America. i beleive the incident took place in Kentucky.

 

[Truronian]

Why do certain people keep trying to muddy the discussion of what Muslims are doing NOW by bringing up what Christians did over 500 years ago?

Given that anesshm's main gripe with Islam is with how they ruled over India way back when, I'd say it has everything to do with it.

 

[RoboPig]

Given that anesshm's main gripe with Islam is with how they ruled over India way back when, I'd say it has everything to do with it.

Islam ruling India was one of our finest times, THE finest, maybe.

@DBear: probably to show that a while ago the same thing was happening in reverse. And it continues today too.

 

[Capulet]

Is there any particular reason that all of the sources of Islam that you linked to are from the same Hindu nationalist website?

Hmm...

 

[Japanrocks12]

So you try to argue that those Muslims who prefer to practice their faith in peace and try to be tolerant of all religions deviate from the fundamental tenets of Islam?

What fundamental tenet of Islam propagates disparity between Islam and other religions?

 

[RoboPig]

So you try to argue that those Muslims who prefer to practice their faith in peace and try to be tolerant of all religions deviate from the fundamental tenets of Islam?

its more that Islam says to strike back rather than to accept your blows. If muslims dont fight back, then they are not obeying the Quran

 

[Winner]

Nice thread. I wonder how many posters will actually read the texts before making any comments...

 

[Capulet]

I haven't read the things aneesh posted and I probably won't.

Why?

First of all, I am a Muslim. Being raised in a religious Muslim family, I believe I have a better understanding of my religion than an ardent Hindu would. And from what I understand, Islam is a religion of ultimate peace - for the world and the soul.

I know what is being quoted in the links aneesh posted. But what is different is our understanding of them: if you want to believe Islam is a violent religion, you will read the texts and believe it is. If you want to believe Islam is a religion of peace, you will read the texts and believe that it is. This is isn't unique to Islam; no, if I wanted to convince myself that Christianity is a violent religion, I could read the holy texts in a way that would convince me. Have an open mind, don't go reading holy texts with a bias. (Like the one aneesh holds because of his nationalism.)

Everything in religion has to be read in context - what that context is, is up to you. And you will find what you're looking for. But leave an open mind. Rather than reading quotes of the Qur'an and the Hadith with biased commentary, why don't you, yourself read the Qur'an? Who knows Islam better? Muslims or Christians/Hindus/Followers of other religions? Muslims know their religion better. So why not read books written by Muslims? If you read actual Muslim texts, then you will understand Islam.

As a Muslim, I believe is a religion of peace. And I believe almost all Muslims would agree with me.

What defines a religion? Is it the majority or a minority?

If a majority of a religion's adherents are peaceful, then in my opinion, that religion must be peaceful.

If a minority of a religion's adherents are violent, like in Islam and every other religion, does that mean Islam is a violent religion? No! The violent ones are a minority.

A minority of people do not define a religion.

 

[bhsup]

Capulet, I just have to give you a huge thumbs up on an outstanding post! Kudos to you.

(would actually put a thumbs up smilie in here, but I don't know the text for it)

 

[Princeps]

I know what is being quoted in the links aneesh posted. But what is different is our understanding of them: if you want to believe Islam is a violent religion, you will read the texts and believe it is. If you want to believe Islam is a religion of peace, you will read the texts and believe that it is. This is isn't unique to Islam; no, if I wanted to convince myself that Christianity is a violent religion, I could read the holy texts in a way that would convince me. Have an open mind, don't go reading holy texts with a bias. (Like the one aneesh holds because of his nationalism.)

Exactly!

Good post Capulet.

 

[Japanrocks12]

its more that Islam says to strike back rather than to accept your blows. If muslims dont fight back, then they are not obeying the Quran

To strike back does not entail death and destruction.

 

[RoboPig]

To strike back does not entail death and destruction.

to strike back means to fight back, so there will be some death and destruction

 

[Japanrocks12]

to strike back means to fight back, so there will be some death and destruction

One can fight back by controverting his opponent's arguments, and through criticisms in general.

 

[Princeps]

besides...

It doesn't matter much, humans would fight no matter what their holy books say.

 

[Winner]

I haven't read the things aneesh posted and I probably won't.

Why?

Probably because you are afraid of the content - it's common for believers to ignore things that question their faith

First of all, I am a Muslim. Being raised in a religious Muslim family, I believe I have a better understanding of my religion than an ardent Hindu would. And from what I understand, Islam is a religion of ultimate peace - for the world and the soul.

That only means you're biased. The fact you're a Muslim doesn't matter. You don't have to believe in something in order to understand it.

I know what is being quoted in the links aneesh posted. But what is different is our understanding of them: if you want to believe Islam is a violent religion, you will read the texts and believe it is. If you want to believe Islam is a religion of peace, you will read the texts and believe that it is. This is isn't unique to Islam; no, if I wanted to convince myself that Christianity is a violent religion, I could read the holy texts in a way that would convince me. Have an open mind, don't go reading holy texts with a bias. (Like the one aneesh holds because of his nationalism.)

Everything in religion has to be read in context - what that context is, is up to you. And you will find what you're looking for. But leave an open mind. Rather than reading quotes of the Qur'an and the Hadith with biased commentary, why don't you, yourself read the Qur'an? Who knows Islam better? Muslims or Christians/Hindus/Followers of other religions? Muslims know their religion better. So why not read books written by Muslims? If you read actual Muslim texts, then you will understand Islam.

You accuse the linked sources of bias, but then you propose to read books written by (biased) Muslims. All right.

As a Muslim, I believe is a religion of peace. And I believe almost all Muslims would agree with me.

I don't care what you believe in. It is completely irrelevant. I am interested in facts. The facts show us, that Islam as a religion is inherently more violent than Christianity or other religions.

What defines a religion? Is it the majority or a minority?

If a majority of a religion's adherents are peaceful, then in my opinion, that religion must be peaceful.

Wrong. There is no such implication.

If a minority of a religion's adherents are violent, like in Islam and every other religion, does that mean Islam is a violent religion? No! The violent ones are a minority.

A minority of people do not define a religion.

Religion is defined by its sources.

 

[vbraun]

b) Jihad refers only and only to some internal Jihad , not to Holy War against infidels

Actually there are two type of Jihads: Greater and Lesser.

The greater jihad is a struggle within ones self, a lesser jihad would be a "holy war".

 

[Capulet]

Probably because you are afraid of the content - it's common for believers to ignore things that question their faith

Oh, no. I read Dhimmi Watch and Jihad Watch everyday, two blogs that are critical of Islam. I know exactly what is being said, and I know it isn't true.

That only means you're biased. The fact you're a Muslim doesn't matter. You don't have to believe in something in order to understand it.

You can't truly understand it if you don't believe it. There is no way someone who doesn't follow the religion knows more than someone who does. I will never understand Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc, like their followers do. No matter how many years you've studied it, you will never understand Islam, unless you live it, unless you breathe it, and unless you are a part of it.

You accuse the linked sources of bias, but then you propose to read books written by (biased) Muslims. All right.

Of course - I'm telling you to read books by the experts. Reading a book about Islam written by a Hindu nationalist is like reading a book on America written by a North Korean communist.

I don't care what you believe in. It is completely irrelevant. I am interested in facts. The facts show us, that Islam as a religion is inherently more violent than Christianity or other religions.

How can a religion be violent? Does the religion go around attacking people with swords? There is a difference between a religion and a minority of it's followers. There are other factors affecting these people to be violent, not religion. Poverty, politics, and culture has more to do with violence than religion does.

Wrong. There is no such implication.

Okay?

Religion is defined by its sources.

The "facts" are that a huge majority of Muslims are not violent. The facts are that a minority of Muslims that have been brainwashed by radicalism and hate because of geo-politics. No area in modern history has faced as much upheaval as the Middle East, and that is the reason for violence. Tyrannical regimes, occupation, and poverty have led to these violent Muslims. Not their religion.

 

[AceChilla]

Actually there are two type of Jihads: Greater and Lesser.

The greater jihad is a struggle within ones self, a lesser jihad would be a "holy war".

Sure....

But when Bin Laden says the word every muslim on earth know exactly what he's talking about.

If you want to see if Islam is a religion of peace look at all the borders of the Islamic world; Kashmir, Sudan, Tjetjenie, Bosnia, Israel, East-Timor, Morocco, Sri Lanka, Libanon, Afghanistan etc. The list of conflicts goes on and on. It seems that whereever Muslims clash with people from a different religion its trouble. Just an observation...

 

[vbraun]

Sure....

But when Bin Laden says the word every muslim on earth know exactly what he's talking about.

Yes, becasue he's calling for a Jihad against someone, therfore rulling out the Greater Jihad.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

....

Religion is defined by its sources.

I disagree. I say a religion is defined by the actions of those who claim to follow that religion. Which means that a violent minority can´t be said to be less "true" followers.