NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE TO MODS: When referring to an easily available reference work, few people think it's necessary to provide a link.



From the Qur'an 8:39 and 9:5:

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]” [al-Anfaal 8:39]

“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As‑Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Tawbah 9:5] ( This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf - the verse of the sword ).

I'm pretty sure there are passages about peace in there too. I'm willing to assume that it contradicts itself as much as the bible does.

ye gods, I spelt 'there' 'their' (changed) keep in mind its 2.21am and I'm drunk.

I'm pretty sure there are passages about peace in there too. I'm willing to assume that it contradicts itself as much as the bible does.

ye gods, I spelt 'there' 'their' (changed) keep in mind its 2.21am and I'm drunk.

LOL! Tsk! :D

do i really need to post all the passages from the Bible in which horrific violence or abuse is glorified and said to be pleasing to the Lord? Islam is as much a religion of peace as Christianity is...for whatever that is worth.

The answer is Yes (to both parts of the question).

All holy texts should be re-evaluated every 1000 years to keep up with the times :D

Does anyone else think this thread is just solid flamebait?

Does anyone else think this thread is just solid flamebait?
why? it's a valid discussion. if somebody did the same thing with a secular belief (like racism, or asking if the "pro-life" stance is one of peace or of militancy) then there wouldn't be any complaint with the topic, so why complain about this? religious beliefs deserve scrutiny just as much as any others, perhaps more so.

why? it's a valid discussion. if somebody did the same thing with a secular belief (like racism, or asking if the "pro-life" stance is one of peace or of militancy) then there wouldn't be any complaint with the topic, so why complain about this? religious beliefs deserve scrutiny just as much as any others, perhaps more so.

Because he's not initiating any discussion. He only posted two quotes that would lead an uninformed person to assume that Islam is a warlike religion. Eutrusca has no interest in an educated debate about Islam. If he did, he would have posted peaceful quotes from the Koran, or at least his own goddamn opinion on the matter. All he wants is for a bunch of people to come in and yell at him about how Islam is a religion of peace, so he can call us all traitors or lefties or commies or something like that.

Its not a "bad" or warlike religion. It just gets really stupid when it starts to get into politics. I could say the same for christianity.

Because he's not initiating any discussion. He only posted two quotes that would lead an uninformed person to assume that Islam is a warlike religion. Eutrusca has no interest in an educated debate about Islam. If he did, he would have posted peaceful quotes from the Koran, or at least his own goddamn opinion on the matter. All he wants is for a bunch of people to come in and yell at him about how Islam is a religion of peace, so he can call us all traitors or lefties or commies or something like that.

Oh, come on. I did no such thing! Nor will I. Just discuss the damned topic, please, that is if you have something constructive and enlightening to say.

I think there is nom such thing as 'religion of peace' and 'religion of war'. You can instrumentalize virtually every religion for both purposes.

I looked up "mushrikoon", the plural of mushrik (idolator or polytheist) and I found this page:

http://icssa.org/violence.htm

Interestingly the author describes a mushrik as one who associates partners in divinity with Allah, but he does not associate it with main-stream (non-Gnostic/non-Ariunite/non-Judaic) Christians, who of course associate the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Abrahmic God that the Muslims call Allah ("the Lord"). Hindus are of course included, as are Buddhists, although to the best of my understanding no true Buddhist considers Gotamma Buddha, or any other Buddha, to be a "god".

And of course the Q'ran itself forbids aggression against the People of the Book, Jews and Christians, although this part is ignored by the many radical mullahs of today and Judaism has been replaced in God's eternal covenent, in the minds of many, by Islam in a way similar to the replacement theology that many "Christians" still follow today.

Anyway I am still reading but it looks like a pretty good page on the topic at hand.

I looked up "mushrikoon", the plural of mushrik (idolator or polytheist) and I found this page:

http://icssa.org/violence.htm

Anyway I am still reading but it looks like a pretty good page on the topic at hand.

I agree. These are the sort of quotes I was hoping someone would post:

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors.” Al-Qur’an 2:190

“And those who, when great wrong is done to them, defend themselves.” Al-Qur’an 42:39

Thank you! :)

If all the "People of the Book" could just set aside their differences and learn to accept one another as fellow servants of God, (as their religious texts would indicate) the world would be so much better for it. Imagine the changes a union of Jews, Muslims, and Christians could work in the world. The charity components alone would ease suffering like never before.

If all the "People of the Book" could just set aside their differences and learn to accept one another as fellow servants of God, (as their religious texts would indicate) the world would be so much better for it. Imagine the changes a union of Jews, Muslims, and Christians could work in the world. The charity components alone would ease suffering like never before.

Very, very true! But unfortunately, very, very unlikely. :(

I agree. These are the sort of quotes I was hoping someone would post:

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors.” Al-Qur’an 2:190

“And those who, when great wrong is done to them, defend themselves.” Al-Qur’an 42:39

Thank you! :)

Welcome :)

Unfortunately other passages contridict the first quote you made, such as those that command Muslims to make war on unbelievers.

The Devil recites scripture for his purpose Such a true saying, and it fits the present situation very well.

Welcome :)

Unfortunately other passages contridict the first quote you made, such as those that command Muslims to make war on unbelievers.

True. Most religions are not noted for their internal logical consistency. :)

"Imagine how peaceful the world would be if we got rid of religion."

"Imagine how peaceful the world would be if we got rid of religion."

Imagine how peaceful the world would be if we got rid of all humans. :rolleyes:

"Imagine how peaceful the world would be if we got rid of religion."
Wonderfully, then we'd only kill each other for food, territory, oil, women, resources, ideals, and fun.

Wonderfully, then we'd only kill each other for food, territory, oil, women, resources, ideals, and fun.

Fun? Fun?? Hmmm. :(

Originally posted by: J0eg0d
"Imagine how peaceful the world would be if we got rid of religion."

I have, and it isn't peaceful at all.

Religion (using the most secular viewpoint I can muster) is a system intended to maintain order and peace. Ideally, one religion would unify a particular group, and all would be bound by that religion's dictation. This is not the case, due to the nature of the world, but that is as it should be. Theoretically, most religions can live together with only mild amounts of tolerance needed, but religion is often used by individuals to further their own ends.

For the most part, though, religion is a good stabilizer for society, and offers deeper meaning and insight than could be found without some common base. What needs to be done is not to institute a society of humanistic atheism, but to institute a society and culture where the core values of major religions are shared, and all religions with these core values (there are some pseudo-religious cults I would want to disappear, like the Raelians.) are accepted.

As Eutrusca pointed out, this isn't likely to happen anytime soon, especially considering the breakdown of religion all over the world. Perhaps, though, it may eventually come about.

I don't see how a religion of peace can justify teaching that suggests taking over the world, by any means necessary and that killing non-believers is not only NOT A SIN, but encouraged. The threat of this idealogy has been ignored for a very long time, probably since Spain regained its freedom from Muslim invaders in the middle ages.

I think the Catholic world was a good deal responsible for making Islam a religion of war through the Crusades. There are few religions that can geniunely claim to be religions of peace, the Catholic faith is most certainly not on the list.

"Imagine how peaceful the world would be if we got rid of religion."

It's not religion itself that's the problem, it's the moral judgements imposed on others by religious people. Freedom and religion are mutually exclusive, which was always something I didn't get, seeing as how the Bible specifically states "Judge not...".

I don't see how a religion of peace can justify teaching that suggests taking over the world, by any means necessary and that killing non-believers is not only NOT A SIN, but encouraged. The threat of this idealogy has been ignored for a very long time, probably since Spain regained its freedom from Muslim invaders in the middle ages.

I think the Catholic world was a good deal responsible for making Islam a religion of war through the Crusades. There are few religions that can geniunely claim to be religions of peace, the Catholic faith is most certainly not on the list.
Yeah because it hasnt changed at all since medieval times ((oh and its all christianity they where all one back then so dont single out just catholics)). How many sane catholics do you see these days wanting war against another religion

I dont think their anymore violent than any other religion, its only that they're considerd outsiders not being in the UN and any bad acts get more attention than the local gay beating religious mobs.

Theres plenty of religious extreemists who would want to cause mass death to the heevens in the US and UK but our laws and security is too tight to allow weapons to be smuggled in as easily as Iraq.

I think the Catholic world was a good deal responsible for making Islam a religion of war through the Crusades. There are few religions that can geniunely claim to be religions of peace, the Catholic faith is most certainly not on the list.
Islam has been involved in religious war and military expansion long before the Crusades. From the moment Islam was born it has fought wars of conquest constantly, against the Jews and Pagans of Arabia, against the pagans of Persia and India, and against the Christians of Byzantium, North Africa, and Spain. In fact the Crusades were a response to the Islamic wars against Christian lands and Islam's conquest of the Christian Palestine. Also, none of the historical religions of the world can claim to be religions of peace. All have been used to justify violence and atrocities.

And yeah the Crusades where to TAKE BACK the "holy land".

Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity is, perhaps less so. I don't like any religion but I think it's pretty bad to single out Islam as being specifially war-like, when nothing else is much better.

Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity is, perhaps less so. I don't like any religion but I think it's pretty bad to single out Islam as being specifially war-like, when nothing else is much better.
Its bad to single out any religion as this especially when your own is as well

Islam is about as peaceful/warlike as every other religion in the world.

Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity is, perhaps less so.
Isn't that singling out Christianity?
I don't like any religion but I think it's pretty bad to single out Islam as being specifially war-like, when nothing else is much better.
In the past both Christianity and Islam were responsible for terrible atrocities, but right now in the year 2004, there is no question that while Christianity has moderated, Islam continues to be involved in widespread religious violence. Muslims are fighting pagans and Christians in Africa, Hindus and Christians in India, religious violence in China, in US and Europe, in Russia, in the Phillippines, Indonesia. Muslims everywhere are having difficulty coexisting peacefully with non-Islamic neighbors.

NOTE TO MODS: When referring to an easily available reference work, few people think it's necessary to provide a link.

From the Qur'an 8:39 and 9:5:


You have to be careful with the translated versions. Especially when a Christian does it. I have read a few that seem to have some rather interesting "mistakes."

The book I have is: The Meaning of The Illustrious Qur-an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

The Muslims at my job say it's a decent translation.

For example:
8.39 says
"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if the cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do."

9.5 is a favorite for the anti-islam forces and it is frequently "misrepresented"

Tauba means Repentance or Bardat which is immunity.

The purpose of Sura IX was basically state policy(espeically versus1-29). If you look at the history the Byzantine emperor was rumored to be planning an invasion of Arabia. The Apostle raised a force to meet it. The invasion didn't happen. When he returned to Medina, he had found the "hypocrites" were not following the Religion and were doing things like letting Pagans into into Medina. It should be known that the Pagans were routinely ignoring the laws of the time.

This was one of the last of the Apostles Suras.

So 9.5

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay Pagans wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleagur them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them; for All is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Now having read that add in 9.4 and 9.6 and see what you think

9.4
"(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term; for Allah loveth the righteoius."

9.6
"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the Word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."

Kind of a different image then the one presented.

There are radicals in any religion and these days people tend to label the whole setup by the actions of a few.

Isn't that singling out Christianity?

In the past both Christianity and Islam were responsible for terrible atrocities, but right now in the year 2004, there is no question that while Christianity has moderated, Islam continues to be involved in widespread religious violence. Muslims are fighting pagans and Christians in Africa, Hindus and Christians in India, religious violence in China, in US and Europe, in Russia, in the Phillippines, Indonesia. Muslims everywhere are having difficulty coexisting peacefully with non-Islamic neighbors.
Fundamentalist Muslims advocating violence is not the same thing as Islam advocating violence.

Islam has been involved in religious war and military expansion long before the Crusades. From the moment Islam was born it has fought wars of conquest constantly, against the Jews and Pagans of Arabia, against the pagans of Persia and India, and against the Christians of Byzantium, North Africa, and Spain. In fact the Crusades were a response to the Islamic wars against Christian lands and Islam's conquest of the Christian Palestine. Also, none of the historical religions of the world can claim to be religions of peace. All have been used to justify violence and atrocities.

Well you need to do a little more research into the history.

At the time of the Prophet, there were alliances with Jewish tribes and they routinely did business with pagans.

You also left out that there were many attempts to invade the area.

As to Christian lands, you might be surprised that the writings left by people from that era said life under the Muslims was actually better. Far less corruption then with Christian rulers.

As to attrocities? Well you should look into what the Christian soldiers did before you toss that claim.

You have to wonder why after 800 years they are still pissed about the Crusades.

Isn't that singling out Christianity?
No not really. As pertaining to the topic of the thread, Christians are usually the ones complaining about Islam


In the past both Christianity and Islam were responsible for terrible atrocities, but right now in the year 2004, there is no question that while Christianity has moderated, Islam continues to be involved in widespread religious violence. Muslims are fighting pagans and Christians in Africa, Hindus and Christians in India, religious violence in China, in US and Europe, in Russia, in the Phillippines, Indonesia. Muslims everywhere are having difficulty coexisting peacefully with non-Islamic neighbors.

Hindus and Muslims, well that fight goes a bit further then simply Islam picking on the poor Hindus. You have to read the history of India to get an understanding.

As to the US? I think you will find the Christians pulling more violent acts then the Muslim population.

In Indonesia the Christians pull the same crap as the Muslims.


The problem with Islam to day is simple. Education of the mind. At it's highpoint, they were will well versed in the Relgion, but also math, science, and the arts.

These days they have the Relgion stuff down but lack in the others. Some are trying to change that.

Ignorence is the breeding ground of violence.

In the Torah/Bible, God condemns Hebrews for not killing "every man, woman, and child" of the opposition. However, all Jews are not horrible war-mongering people last time I checked, nor is Judaism (or Christianity) truly a religion of war.

Jews did their share of attrocies in history and present. But since they were a minority whereever there were, it was fewer.


BTW: Does anyone know a war justified by Buddhism?

Jews did their share of attrocies in history and present. But since they were a minority whereever there were, it was fewer.


BTW: Does anyone know a war justified by Buddhism?

Buddhism is pacifist, it shouldn't be able to allow a war.
A true Buddhist would not even shoot a known terrorist to save another life as he would know in his heart that Karma will do to the terrorist what he does to others and the victim shall reap the rewards of his life.
If it was 1 terrorist vs 50 people then he might reconsider.

Islam was fairly peaceful for a long time, I generally think of the peaceful, more forward thinking as 'true Muslims' as they follow the spirit of Islam more than any other. The modern 'fundamentalist' Muslims I think of as 'Saladin Muslims' as they follow the more militant doctrine of Saladin and his contemporaries.
And what made Saladin great?
A warlike religion invading the region to seize control of a city that it had no better claim to than the Muslims and Jews.

If you pick and choose what you want to quote from, you can make any of the three(jewish, christian, muslim) look bad. If you take each as a whole, particularly where the religion 'concluded' its teachings within its own sourcebooks, then you see differences in how much aggression is condoned or encouraged. Religions do evolve within the timelines of each of their key writings, and there are fragments of each religion that are attempting to evolve further. You have to keep this in mind. There is where the religion came from, what it became, and what people want it to be.
Its interesting to note the differences in the stereotypes of a fundamentalist jew, christian, and muslim.

To enter the flames and answer the question at hand, islam can be used to justify outright sustained war on the world. The rewards for those who engage in war, as a muslim, are infinitely greater than for its modern counterparts. On the flipside, there is still a push for being peaceful and good within islam also. I think there is more in the way of confliction within islam than christianity. It seems to me that islam has fewer splinter sects but those that do differ do so radically whereas christianity has a different group for every day of the year with plenty waiting in line for rotation, but most denominations dont appear to be very different from most others.

A warlike religion invading the region to seize control of a city...

... to pacify it, end the blood that was spilt in its streets, realize that all divine religions have claim to it, and open the doors for people of all religions to come and worship in it.

You forgot that part, didn't you?



And I think The Black Forrest makes an outstanding point. You study Islam through English translations of the Qu'ran, and what Al-Qaeda is doing.

English translations of the Qu'ran != Islam/God's word.

A translation to any language is subject to the translator's interpretation and understanding of the Qu'ran, which means the book can be written in thousands of different ways based on thousands of different interpretations.

Even if an honest Muslim tries to translate the Qu'ran, it will still be a "wrong" translation, and its significance as the "word of God" disappears.

So.. it can be said that your argument here is utter bull, as I know those ayahs very well, and what you wrote there is not mentioned anywhere in the Holy Qu'ran.

I can't say. I never read the Koran before.

... to pacify it, end the blood that was spilt in its streets, realize that all divine religions have claim to it, and open the doors for people of all religions to come and worship in it.

You forgot that part, didn't you?


No, I was referring to the Crusades, are you?
It was a religious war encouraged by the Papacy to further increase its power.

If you were referring to my argument as being 'bull' then it's only a personal opinion based on the Muslims I know and how they feel about much of the fighting done by Al-Quaeda

No, I was referring to the Crusades, are you?
It was a religious war encouraged by the Papacy to further increase its power.

If you were referring to my argument as being 'bull' then it's only a personal opinion based on the Muslims I know and how they feel about much of the fighting done by Al-Quaeda

I apologize. I thought you were referring to Saladin's liberation of Jerusalem.

and I was referring to the thread starter's (I don't like mentioning his name anymore) argument as bull..

Sorry for the confusion :)

I apologize. I thought you were referring to Saladin's liberation of Jerusalem.

and I was referring to the thread starter's (I don't like mentioning his name anymore) argument as bull..

Sorry for the confusion :)

Aha.
Well I was being ironic about Christianity being just as violent as any other given religion in its past.

Another point -

If you want to know what the Qu'ran truly means, you should consult a Muslim, not any online or printed Qu'ran you get your hands onto.

The problem here is.. the fundamentalists would give you an interpretation that condones violence, and basically every Muslim would give you a different interpretation of the verse.

But many moderates will give you an objective translation based on their understanding. This is the spirit of "ijtihad" and unfortunately it is being used by these fundamentalist fucks to show Islam in a very negative light.

Another point -

If you want to know what the Qu'ran truly means, you should consult a Muslim, not any online or printed Qu'ran you get your hands onto.

The problem here is.. the fundamentalists would give you an interpretation that condones violence, and basically every Muslim would give you a different interpretation of the verse.

But many moderates will give you an objective translation based on their understanding. This is the spirit of "ijtihad" and unfortunately it is being used by these fundamentalist fucks to show Islam in a very negative light.

That's why I judge it by the ones I know.
I think that the extremist groups demonstrate the same sort of approach to Islam as the Ku Klux Klan does to Christianity.

Even Imams aren't the best ones to ask anymore for popular opinion as there's a section of younger Muslims moving more towards the liberal, forward thinking method of Islam.

Yeah because it hasnt changed at all since medieval times ((oh and its all christianity they where all one back then so dont single out just catholics)). How many sane catholics do you see these days wanting war against another religion

Actually since medieval times it has only gotten worse. After the Spaniards freed themselves from Muslim oppression they went to South America and killed countless amounts of natives all in the name of Christianity. In more recent history, Serbia's atrocieties in Kosovo were justified, you guessed it, by Christianity. I'm sure there are religions that preach true peace (I think Buddism is one) but generally they are not as globally dominant because they have to be taught rather than imposed.

As for singling out Catholics, I'm afraid you're wrong there. There were other Christian churches at the time, such as the Greek, Armenian and Russian Orthodox churches for example and the Crusades (at least most of the "official" ones) were ordered specifically by the Catholic Pope in the Vatican.

Yes, the Crusades were in response to the Holy Land falling to "pagans". However I do not believe that the Muslims who took over the Holy Land committed any of the attrocieties that the Catholics did. Such as everybody's favourite Richard the Lionheart, who had an entire town massacred, women children and all because they were Muslim.

How many sane Catholics want to go to war? Well George W Bush claims to be a sane Catholic. He sure mentions God a lot in his speeches, especially the ones concerned with going to war. You think about it.

Actually since medieval times it has only gotten worse. After the Spaniards freed themselves from Muslim oppression they went to South America and killed countless amounts of natives all in the name of Christianity. In more recent history, Serbia's atrocieties in Kosovo were justified, you guessed it, by Christianity. I'm sure there are religions that preach true peace (I think Buddism is one) but generally they are not as globally dominant because they have to be taught rather than imposed.

As for singling out Catholics, I'm afraid you're wrong there. There were other Christian churches at the time, such as the Greek, Armenian and Russian Orthodox churches for example and the Crusades (at least most of the "official" ones) were ordered specifically by the Catholic Pope in the Vatican.

Yes, the Crusades were in response to the Holy Land falling to "pagans". However I do not believe that the Muslims who took over the Holy Land committed any of the attrocieties that the Catholics did. Such as everybody's favourite Richard the Lionheart, who had an entire town massacred, women children and all because they were Muslim.

How many sane Catholics want to go to war? Well George W Bush claims to be a sane Catholic. He sure mentions God a lot in his speeches, especially the ones concerned with going to war. You think about it.

Catholics in recent history?
We call them the IRA.

Fundamentalist Muslims advocating violence is not the same thing as Islam advocating violence.
I don't really care about the IDEAL of Islam. I also don't care about the IDEAL of Christianity or the IDEAL of Buddhism, or whatever, because humans will never reach these ideals. If Islam or Christianity or Judaism were practiced perfectly, and all humans were perfect and orderly, then there would be peace on earth, brotherly love, etc. etc. But because the world, and humans, are NOT perfect, these religions are twisted to justify inhumane actions.

An abstract ideal of what Islam or Christianity is not relevant to our understanding of the world. What is relevant is how these religions are actually interpreted, practiced, and implemented. And we cannot ignore the actions of fundamentalists, because fundamentalism is a real-world interpretation of the religion, and is thus relevant to real life. A false, abstract ideal put forth by an apologist is NOT relevant in the face of palpable real-world evidence. Sure there are huge numbers of peace-loving Muslims and there are many fundamentalist Christians, but overall, Islamic society is more fundamentalist and totalitarian than non-Muslim societies.

Because he's not initiating any discussion. He only posted two quotes that would lead an uninformed person to assume that Islam is a warlike religion. Eutrusca has no interest in an educated debate about Islam. If he did, he would have posted peaceful quotes from the Koran, or at least his own goddamn opinion on the matter. All he wants is for a bunch of people to come in and yell at him about how Islam is a religion of peace, so he can call us all traitors or lefties or commies or something like that.
I agree - the moment I saw this I could swear Eutrusca was hungry for flame.

Though one thing still bothers me: Why do certain *far* left-wingers consider Islam to be the the "best" religion? It seems to contradict their whole idea of equality and that religions are no better or worse than one another.

I agree - the moment I saw this I could swear Eutrusca was hungry for flame.

Though one thing still bothers me: Why do certain *far* left-wingers consider Islam to be the the "best" religion? It seems to contradict their whole idea of equality and that religions are no better or worse than one another.

Who is that?

Besides that point, why can't a lefty have an opinion? Do all righties think the same way? Do all liberts?

I agree - the moment I saw this I could swear Eutrusca was hungry for flame.

Though one thing still bothers me: Why do certain *far* left-wingers consider Islam to be the the "best" religion? It seems to contradict their whole idea of equality and that religions are no better or worse than one another.

Because Islam in its truest sense preaches total equality.
There's none of the women oppressed crap, both men and women dress modestly and follow the set guidelines.
It's hard to see how this works as often we just see Somalians with the women dressed like Ninjas and the men in whatever they want to wear.
Really only the hijab is required, not for all the face to be covered and men have to wear beards which obscures some of their face as well.

Who is that?

Besides that point, why can't a lefty have an opinion? Do all righties think the same way? Do all liberts?
The person who started the thread.

And not all lefties think that way, I never said that; and I'm not going to silence their personal views on religion - but politically, some like to voice Islam as best, and it just seems to me that it contradicts their other political belief of all humans, religions, and beliefs, being equal and no better or worse than another

the way I look at it is simple. Islam like christianity is full of contradiction. One of the serious problems with any large religious group is that group wields power. Bastards like power. They abuse the religious doctrine and twist it into the most pleasing shape for their purposes. The koran teaches peace but it also teaches that others aren't always peaceful. Problem: this leads to the concept of a "Just War". Burn the infidel, annihilate the heretic. Most holy Jerusalem isn't importatnt because it is holy, that is just the Reason it was fought over. Next time you look at a map think about placement.

(kind of unrelated facts I know but just trying to make my point in a speedy way.)

Well you need to do a little more research into the history.

At the time of the Prophet, there were alliances with Jewish tribes and they routinely did business with pagans.

You also left out that there were many attempts to invade the area.

As to Christian lands, you might be surprised that the writings left by people from that era said life under the Muslims was actually better. Far less corruption then with Christian rulers.
I doubt your claim about the corruption. Medieval Islam and Christianity were both hierarchical feudal societies susceptible to corruption and plutocracy. Some kings were generous and just but as in any society, these virtuous rulers were balanced out with corrupt despots. The later caliphs of the Abbassid Caliphate were known for their corruption and extravagance; their resentful subjects eventually rebelled and Islamic unity was broken into many competing kingdoms. However I do agree that Islam used to be far more tolerant of religious minorities than Christianity.

Anyways your talk about trading with Jews and whatnot has nothing to do with my original post. The person I was replying to claimed that Islamic wars were induced by the Crusades. That is untrue, because Islam had been conquering ever since the death of Muhammad when the Arab tribes united and attempted to conquer the world. Even though they treated conquered non-Muslim monotheists fairly, it does not change the fact that war has been a way of life and tradition in Islamic culture. Within 100 years of Muhammad's death, the Sassanian Persian empire was destroyed by Muslim invaders, Muslims also conquered half of Byzantium, Gothic kingdoms in north Africa and Spain, and within a few more centuries they conquered the pagans in Central Asia and overthrew the Hindu dynsaties at Delhi.

As to attrocities? Well you should look into what the Christian soldiers did before you toss that claim.
Did I ever say Christians never committed atrocities? Also you are completely mistaken if you believe that medieval Islam did not have its butchers.

You have to wonder why after 800 years they are still pissed about the Crusades.
Muslims are extremely mindful of historical events and take centuries-old historical events very seriously. This reflects Muslim culture's extremely developed sense of self-superiority and sense that they are allowed to conquer others, but no one is allowed to do anything bad to Muslims. Not many Christians are going to be terrorists to avenge the capture of Constantinople by Muslims in 1453, yet Muslims are willing to bomb civilians to avenge the capture of Granada by Christians in 1492.

No not really. As pertaining to the topic of the thread, Christians are usually the ones complaining about Islam
In fact that is not the case. Muslims are given great leeway in Christian-dominated nations, and other non-Muslim nations. But religious minorities are not well tolerated in Muslim nations as they would be in non-Muslim nations. In the Islamic gulf states for example Christian practices are restricted, and Iran has banned many polytheist religions.

Hindus and Muslims, well that fight goes a bit further then simply Islam picking on the poor Hindus. You have to read the history of India to get an understanding.
Tell me, what is your enlightened insight on this matter? Hindu India has coexisted with and accepted countless religions including Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Sikhism (at least they recently got over their disputes), Judaism, Zoroastrianism, but Islam has caused unprecedented religious tension.

As to the US? I think you will find the Christians pulling more violent acts then the Muslim population.
Given their small size, the Muslim fundamentalists have caused the most religious violence. Muslim communities are also less likely to assimilate, resulting in mutual cultural suspicion between the Muslim minority and non-Muslim majority in the US.

In Indonesia the Christians pull the same crap as the Muslims.
THe Christians and Muslims of INdonesia have coexisted peacefully for the past few centuries, but Islamic fundamentalism has increased recently and has abused non-MUslim populations and provoked them into violent defensive acts. True, some Christians have taken self defense too far and have counterattacked the Muslims, but the root cause of this is the rise of radical Islam which will not tolerate people of different faiths.

The problem with Islam to day is simple. Education of the mind. At it's highpoint, they were will well versed in the Relgion, but also math, science, and the arts.
A golden age 1000 years dead has no relevance to the present day.

These days they have the Relgion stuff down but lack in the others. Some are trying to change that.

Ignorence is the breeding ground of violence.
Islamic reformers are also hampered by apologists who insist that everything is rosy.

Jews did their share of attrocies in history and present. But since they were a minority whereever there were, it was fewer.


BTW: Does anyone know a war justified by Buddhism?
Currently the Sinhalese use Buddhism to justify their war against the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Buddhism has also been used to justify many wars in Chinese and Japanese history. It was also used to justify feudalism and slavery in Tibet up to the 20th century, racism and feudalism in China and Southeast Asia.

I doubt your claim about the corruption. Medieval Islam and Christianity were both hierarchical feudal societies susceptible to corruption and plutocracy.

That I will grant you as I should have clarified. The writtings in question are from the people that were living at the time of the first fall.

Did not mean to suggest all the time.


Anyways your talk about trading with Jews and whatnot has nothing to do with my original post. The person I was replying to claimed that Islamic wars were induced by the Crusades.

Ok I follow you now.....

In fact that is not the case. Muslims are given great leeway in Christian-dominated nations,

By the goverment yes. However, that does not mean the average Christian. I hear it all the time they are only about war.....


Tell me, what is your enlightened insight on this matter? Hindu India has coexisted with and accepted countless religions including Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Sikhism (at least they recently got over their disputes), Judaism, Zoroastrianism, but Islam has caused unprecedented religious tension.

Well. I have been to Bangalore, Mysore, Arangabad, Jaipur, New Delhi, Augra, Bombey and the Nagerholi reserve.

I thought I was going to have somethign to say about the Sikhs but you clarified! ;)

There are incidents (as with any civilization) that suggest violence such as what happened to the Buddhists at the caves outside of Arangabad? Where they absorbed, die off, or wiped out? No clear answer. But I have heard arguments for each scenerio.

As to the violence between the two, sure but you actully going to argue that the Hindu are completely blameless?

Kashmir? Is that the Muslims fault?

Muslim communities are also less likely to assimilate, resulting in mutual cultural suspicion between the Muslim minority and non-Muslim majority in the US.

Well I don't know about that. I can't speak for all but I know of two instances where two Mosques are bending over backwards to not cause problems. The Michigan case of the call to prayer. They went to the city goverment and asked rather then just did it.


A golden age 1000 years dead has no relevance to the present day.

You overlook the point. Education vs ignorance....

The primary problem with assimilation (as is my understanding) is that there is a very deft separatist streak in alot of islamic teaching which in its own way makes a kind of sense. The basic concept goes that when the world was made people were put where they belonged. Black people in africa, white people in europe, red people in the americas and so on. At that time everything was fantastic. But then people started going to other places and seeing what those other places had that was valuable. Wars started, corruption, ethnic cleansing the lot. The basic lesson being when those who belonged here went there serious problems arose.

This is my understanding from the knowledge I have.

Education vs. Ignorance isn't the issue. You can educate virtually anyone about almost anything. The problem is that we have no lack of education and no solid supply of understanding. Hitler educated a great many people who had too little by way of understanding. You can be taught to read shakespeare but it is a different story to understand him (although there is a belief that he never wrote a word of it and only ripped off other people(that and he loved cocaine)).

On another note there is no such thing as a buddhist Religious war in that sense. Buddhist have waged war, fought in wars and killed alot of people but not out of the Buddha demanding it. Buddhism just isn't structured to that kind of concept. There were Buddhist sects who believed that the only way to die was in battle. They fought to defend there homes provinces and countries. In Japan a group called the Ikko-Ikki was composed of civilians and monks who detested the Daimyos (warlords) and so fought to stay independant and even to free other provinces from the lords. But there is no Buddhist "Just War". The concept of such a conflict means you have to be right with God *good* and they have to be against God *evil*. Buddhism hasn't the precept of evil pure and separate of God against God. All things are one with the Buddha and the Buddha is not evil in any of its shapes or acts.

Its teachings and the majority of its followers make it a religion of peace, but a few bad apples create the misconception that it is a religion of war.

do i really need to post all the passages from the Bible in which horrific violence or abuse is glorified and said to be pleasing to the Lord? Islam is as much a religion of peace as Christianity is...for whatever that is worth.

non of the following supports jihad... but you still can't call islam a "religion of war"