So Islam is a religion of peace?

[Mouthwash]

the British used to say that, and the Romans ... heck even the Spanish and dutch...
usually during their decline ... carry on playing your fiddle, the US might warant a chapter in Chinese text books ... you can't fix what you don't acknowledge

anyhow you will still have that great French statue in New York to remind you of the Good old days

Looks like someone needs to stop watching Glenn Beck.

 

[kramerfan86]

I need help with a debate. The resolution was if Islam was a peaceful religion. Not necessarily it's followers or their interpretation. Read the definition I gave.

A religion is all about its interpretation, that is what makes the religion. If an overwhelming majority including leadership agree and establish the belief structure is ____, that is the religion.

 

[Mouthwash]

A religion is all about its interpretation, that is what makes the religion. If an overwhelming majority including leadership agree and establish the belief structure is ____, that is the religion.

This is the definition for the debate: "A monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God, and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. "

He needs to establish an objective causal link between Islam and violence to win.

 

[kramerfan86]

This is the definition for the debate: "A monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God, and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. "

That definition solves nothing because what the text says is where the interpretation comes in. There are hundreds of christian interpretations of the bible and as such it would be utterly ridiculous to plop out some definition that proclaimed there was one proper interpretation on which to found the debate. it is equally ridiculous to apply that whitewash standard to a debate about islam.

 

[Mouthwash]

That definition solves nothing because what the text says is where the interpretation comes in. There are hundreds of christian interpretations of the bible and as such it would be utterly ridiculous to plop out some definition that proclaimed there was one proper interpretation on which to found the debate. it is equally ridiculous to apply that whitewash standard to a debate about islam.

I know it's useless. But I have to work with it. I need a rebuttal to the abrogated verses part.

 

[kramerfan86]

You arent going to get the rebuttals you want because you are trying to apply whitewash standards to the debate. There is no one true answer to your abrogated verses statement because once again different divisions have different views but you want this bizarre "well this is the official islamic position!" standard that doesnt exist.

 

[Verbose]

A religion is all about its interpretation, that is what makes the religion. If an overwhelming majority including leadership agree and establish the belief structure is ____, that is the religion.

Which becomes even more pressing with Islam, since it has comparatively little in the way of overarching authoritative structures to tell you what is the correct interpretation.

 

[Mouthwash]

You arent going to get the rebuttals you want because you are trying to apply whitewash standards to the debate. There is no one true answer to your abrogated verses statement because once again different divisions have different views but you want this bizarre "well this is the official islamic position!" standard that doesnt exist.

So I'll just BS, strawman, and smoke-and-mirror my way through the debate. Do you have any sources on abrogation that I might be able to use?

 

[Leoreth]

Evidently. A non-comprehensive list: Tunisia, Chad, Darfur, Algeria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Morocco, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, the Phillipines, China, Russia, Serbia, and of course Israel and Palestine. Plus those parts of the Palestinian territories where Hamas and Fatah are in control.

You do realize that in most of these countries the conflicts are either not religious in nature or fought only by a tiny subset of the population? You do know that even in Palestine most people are just minding their own business and trying to get through the mess they're living in? I hope ...? I'm never sure what's obfuscation and what's genuine ignorance with you.

By your line of reasoning Christianity was a violent religion in the 1940s because almost all predominantly Christian nations were at war at that point.

I need help with a debate. The resolution was if Islam was a peaceful religion. Not necessarily it's followers or their interpretation. Read the definition I gave.

Where did you give a definition? I looked up your OP but there you just ask a disconnected question.

As others have said, religions are defined by what its followers think it is. There is no "true Islam" you can either follow or deviate from (although I'm certain various Muslim sects will claim that theirs is). And why does that hurt your debate in any way? Your opponent seeks to prove that Islam is a violent religion. If he says that the interpretation of the vast majority of Muslims doesn't count, reply with the question whether he thinks it's the actions of the Muslims we should be worried about or the tenets of some abstract faith?

 

[Ajidica]

I think Ziggy said it best by asking "Is a hammer a murder weapon?"
If the person you are arguing against doesn't get the implications of that question, then their mind is probably already set.

 

[Masada]

He defined Islam to be the "monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God, and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God."

You seem to be citing a Muwahideen?

I am not sure if I can use this to refute his argument. Your response does not help because the debate is not about the Muslims' interpretation.

Your proposing to remove the Muslims from Islam? That's about as absurd a propostion as what the various Islam Is Eval crowd are pushing.

Also, the slandering of Israel is frowned upon.

It's called sarcasm. And it seems to be a Done Thing in OT, regardless of whether you or I disagree with it.

 

[Verbose]

So I'll just BS, strawman, and smoke-and-mirror my way through the debate. Do you have any sources on abrogation that I might be able to use?

Considering, if I've understood the ground rules of this debate, this seems to be precisely what your adversary is planning to do: Why, yes! Unless of course you plan to try to call him on his BS:ing, strawmanning and smoke-and-mirroring. Which would seem entirely doable?

 

[BasketCase]

You do realize that in most of these countries the conflicts are either not religious in nature

I do. And it's irrelevant. Doesn't matter what the wars are being fought over (at least, not in ways this thread is concerned with); the issue is that Muslims are fighting in them.

or fought only by a tiny subset of the population?

Only in a few places. Not enough to alter the general rule.

Further: your demand for evidence that the majority of Muslims are "involved in wars" was inappropriate. All I said was that peaceful Mulsims are the minority. I disagree with your black-and-white interpretation of the issue. For example, I don't consider protesters chanting "Death to Israel" peaceful.

You do know that even in Palestine most people are just minding their own business and trying to get through the mess they're living in?

Of course. That doesn't mean they can't advocate violence at the same time.

I hope ...? I'm never sure what's obfuscation and what's genuine ignorance with you.

Then maybe you should wait until you're sure.

By your line of reasoning Christianity was a violent religion in the 1940s because almost all predominantly Christian nations were at war at that point.

Off-topic.

So the West would irradiate the source of their key fuel supply? What a laughable claim.

Not laughable at all. Are you aware most of the food you eat is irradiated? Irradiated oil works just fine, and is perfectly safe to handle; irradiation doesn't make something radioactive. Oil contaminated with fallout is something to worry about--however, an airburst generates almost no fallout. The evil United States could easily wipe out the Middle East and leave all the oil untouched if it wanted to.

Although not quite as ridiculous as your double standard where the actions of a portion of membership apply to all members for groups you dislike

Can you quote me saying "all Muslims are violent"? No. You can't.

but the groups are are part of its irrelevant.

Of course they're irrelevant. They're off-topic.

 

[Angst]

Off-topic.

Do you think that Christian nations are inherently violent because of their Christian nature? If not, you lost the argument right here.

 

[BasketCase]

Off.

Topic.

 

[kramerfan86]

Pointing out double standards in a poor argument isnt off topic at all.

 

[BasketCase]

You can't point out what doesn't exist.

There is no double-standard until I answer the question. I haven't answered it. And I won't.

 

[kramerfan86]

You dont need to, your commentary on islam while silence on similar behaviors in Christianity in the past and present IS a double standard. Exclusively praising or criticizing something while ignoring other things is a form of double standard. If I constantly praise one child for good work and say nothing to one doing similar work, I have a double standard going.

 

[BasketCase]

You dont need to, your commentary on islam while silence on similar behaviors in Christianity in the past and present

.....is called "not going off-topic". This thread isn't about Christianity, it's about Islam.

Feel free to create "Is Christianity a religion of peace?" if you like. Hell, if you do, feel free to remind me with a PM and I'll jump right in.

 

[Lone Wolf]

There is no double-standard until I answer the question. I haven't answered it. And I won't.

Feel free to create "Is Christianity a religion of peace?" if you like. Hell, if you do, feel free to remind me with a PM and I'll jump right in.

So, if a thread about Christianity will be started you will answer the question in some way and we'll be finally able to understand whether you have double standards or not? You seem to contradict yourself here. (Unless posting something in different threads precludes double standards, which is, well, strange).

Furthermore, in a thread about Islam being violent, "is Islam being particularly violent" is a legitimate question. Answers like "Yes, and it's very violent compared to other faiths" or "Yes, but it's the least violent among all faiths on the planet" are obviously not off-topic. Both tell us more about Islam then just "Yes". But to support them, you have to compare other religions with Islam, Christianity included. If these answers are off-topic, then your category of "on-topic" hampers the possibility of an interesting or enlightening debate at all, since it prevents every attempt to elaborate on the debating topic by analogy or comparison.