So Islam is a religion of peace?

No, the point we're making should be crystal clear to you.

"Africa" is not the same as "the people inhabiting Africa", and "Islam" is not the same as "the people practicing Islam" or even "extremists practicing Islam".

While of course the satellite picture thing was also meant to be lighthearted, I felt it necessary to illustrate the difference a little more directly. And your reaction shows that it was necessary, because you apparently weren't aware of any difference.

So while that doesn't automatically invalidate your position, it means that if you want to use the premise "extremists practicing Islam are violent" to arrive at the conclusion "Islam is violent", you have to outline your reasoning why this is so, because they are certainly not the same.
 
Don't you findthere's a whole lot more "extremists" in Islam than any other religion?
Not to any extent that can't be explain by non-religious factors, no.

And don't you find the extremists of Islam tend to be more violent than other religions' extremists?
Can't say I do. If anything, they're among the more restrained religions when it comes to extremist violence; I've never heard of Al Qaeda burning anyone at the stake, for example, which you'll recall was something actively practised by numerous European states only a few centuries ago.

America, as a nation, is fat. Africa, as a continent, is black. Islam, as a religion, is violent.
Firstly, you're talking about vastly different proportions. A majority of Africans are black and a large minority of Americans are fat, but only a very, very small minority of Muslims are engaged in religious violent. We're talking something like 80%/30%/0.0001%; it's a wholly invalid comparison.

Secondly, not only are the first two claims false, they're also absurd. America is not a "fat nation", because obesity is not a property of nation-states. Africa is not a "black continent", because race is not a property of landmasses. Many Americans are fat, yes, and most Africans are black, but that doesn't imply that America and Africa as such share those properties. You may as well say that "America is about five foot seven" or "Africa has 46 chromosomes"; it's basically spurious. So that doesn't really consistent an effective precedent for your claim.
 
So if Islam isn't its followers, then it's the message given in its scriptures, is it not (unless we've ruled that out already and I didn't see it)? Have we analysed the Qu'ran in depth yet in this thread, taking into account the abrogation of older decrees by later ones which apparently condone more violence?
 
Yes, the "abrogation" nonsense interpretation was discussed long ago.
 
Dude, they didn't do it out of religious extremism. The IRA just wanted a united Ireland, "catholic" vs "protestant" was just a handy way to differentiate who were the evil colonists and the natives.

Except the Protestants were the natives of Ulster and the Catholics were the evil colonists.
 
Islam is just a religion. Its not intrinsically directed towards violence nor peace. Same goes for all the other Abrahamic religions.
 
What page was it on?

I talked about it with Kochman in the Islam and Women's rights thread. Having never heard of it, I looked it up and found that many Muslim scholars disagree about the implementation and whether it should be applied at all.

Courtesy of taillesskangaru:
http://iiit.org/Research/ScholarsSu...ionintheQuranACritique/tabid/241/Default.aspx
http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2010/11/06/jihad-abrogation-in-the-quran-the-verse-of-the-sword/
Many of us did. There are 8 other threads in the tavern where it is also discussed. You can find them by using the "Search this forum" function at the top of the Tavern page.

There are also 8 references to "abrogation" in this thread outside of those on this page. You can find them by using the "Search this thread" function at the top of the page.
 
KevinLancaster said:
Have we analysed the Qu'ran in depth yet in this thread, taking into account the abrogation of older decrees by later ones which apparently condone more violence?

Abrogation is mindbogglingly complex. I can't even begin to understand the Shafi'i positions on it and I'm fairly knowledgeable about that particular madhhab. I literally couldn't say a word about the other Sunni schools opinions.
 
Top Bottom