[Big Mac]

Is Islam truly a religion of peace as the leaders of the Western world want their countries to believe?

I want to see the point debated, and then I'll link to an incredibly powerful documentary on the subject.

Note: As a religious Jew I am taught to believe that there are many paths to G-d, and as one of the world's great monotheistic faiths Islam is a valid path for the non-Jew. My belief is that Islam is a tool used by Heaven to spread a substantial amount of Torah truth to the non-Jewish world. (I have to also admit to my Christian friends that my belief also applies to Christianity.) With that said, I know that Islam is inherently a violent religion that seeks to bring the world to unified adherence to its doctrine through any means necessary including barbaric violence.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Note: As a religious Jew I am taught to believe that there are many paths to G-d, and as one of the world's great monotheistic faiths Islam is a valid path for the non-Jew.

Do you really believe that, or are you just pre-emptively trying to appease certain people ?

-t

[Doofy]

Do you think Islam truly is a religion of peace?

Yes, but only when the whole world looks like Afghanistan and all infidels have been wiped out of existence.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Do you really believe that, or are you just pre-emptively trying to appease certain people ?

-t

No, I really do believe what I wrote. Islam is (or I should say can be) a valid path for the non-Jew - despite the facts that it is predicated largely on warfare, it is theologically deficient and philosophically incoherent in many important ways. There are also practices and beliefs that can make it defective in my opinion as a valid path, but there are populations decent, peaceful Muslims who I do believe fit the divine mandate of practicing a valid faith for non-Jews.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, I really do believe what I wrote.

How do you weigh your view with the islamic viewpoint that The Torah is corrupted?
They're essentially saying "The Torah is crap, read this instead".

[Big Mac]

See my qualifiers above for one. It's a good question, and in consideration of it here are some points I would make:

1) Judaism defines valid faiths for non-Jews as those that adhere to the Seven Laws of Noah. Belief in the holiness/inerrancy/inviolability of the Torah is not one of those laws, but if one considers Islamic doctrines toward Judaism and hatred of Jews as blaspheming the Holy Name, a case could be made against my general view. One could also argue that a number of those laws are violated by many of the actions of Mohammed (which Muslims use as a model of the perfect man) and by many of his teachings. but I think there is a sufficient amount of valid teachings contained in Islam that decent Muslims can choose to emphasize the just elements of their religion in their lives, ignore much of the unjust, and lead generally righteous lives. The Druze Arabs in Israel, for example, (who have their own unique brand of Islam that was influenced by western thought) have endorsed the 7 Laws as binding for non-Jews, which shows their acceptance of them. The Bedouin Arabs of Israel are largely loyal to Israel because they are loyal to whatever government they live under. And a well known group of Italian Muslims are staunchly anti-terror and pro-Israel.

2) Some Muslims challenge the normative notions that Mohammed taught the Torah to be corrupt. Based on the research I did some months ago, the Koran only accuses Jews of corrupting their teachings of the religion (rather than textual corruption), and in regard to that I think Mohammed was referring to them rejecting him as a prophet. He thought they were concealing from him Hebrew prophecies that heralded his coming - obviously a huge falsehood - but I think that was what he was referring to. When two Jews had a dispute and came to him, he ordered that they read to him from the Torah and follow its prescriptions rather than his. Early on in his career, before he was called a false prophet by the Jews of Arabia, he displayed far more tolerance toward Jews and Christians and the validity of their religions in his eyes. He originally claimed to be the prophet for the unenlightened Arabs and accepted that Judaism and Christianity were valid for Jews and Christians, and at an early point in its development Islam had affinity for Judaism and Christianity. Later, when he was ascending in power and influence, he changed his mission to be the conversion (or at least subjugation) of the entire earth to his religion and its political system, so he had to make up some patently ridiculous claims about Jews worshipping Ezra or Christians worshipping Mary as part of the trinity as part of his campaign to cause hatred for Jews and Christians in the minds of his followers.

3) Many times in the Koran Mohammed justifies his teachings by saying that they are confirmed in both the Torah and the Gospels that came before the Koran. If he or his supposed revelation thought they were corrupt, he would not have used them to justify his teachings.

4) I hold the way I do about Islam generally not just on the basis of my own scholarship but based on the view of great rabbis who held that way, such as Rabbi Maimonides who lived in the Arab world, served as a physician to Arab royalty and obviously had a lot of knowledge of their religion. Maimonides' view is very influential on many subjects of Jewish law, so unless I have strong reason to depart from it I have to give it a lot of weight.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

. . .is a valid path for the non-Jew. .

So you believe that other religions are an acceptable path to heaven? Do you believe that any are superior than others?

I have to admit that this is one thing that confused me about religion. There are so many, which is the correct one.

[Chongo]

One question that must be answered is All*h the G*d of Abraham, the G*d of Issac, and the G*d of Jacob?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

So you believe that other religions are an acceptable path to heaven? Do you believe that any are superior than others?

Yes, Judaism teaches that there are many paths to G-d. As I said, we believe that those faiths that qualify under the seven laws given to Noah post-flood guarantee non-Jews a place in the perfected "world to come." Of course, inherently connected to this belief is the view that Judaism is the highest on the religious scale. That does not mean it has a monopoly on the whole truth necessarily because there is wisdom contained elsewhere, but as a Jew I know that Judaism is the highest religious revelation there was and will ever be. One day it is prophesied that the rest of the world will recognize that as a fact: "When that time comes, ten men will take hold – speaking all the languages of the nations – will grab hold of the cloak of a Jew and say, 'We want to go with you, because we have heard that God is with you'" (Zechariah 8:23). Aside from qualifying as a Noahide faith, it is difficult to give an objective ranking of the other religions because they have their relative merits and demerits. I could list each one and give their strengths and weaknesses based on the degree to which they are compatible with Jewish teachings, but I doubt too many would be interested in that, at least not in this venue.

I have to admit that this is one thing that confused me about religion. There are so many, which is the correct one.

That's one of the major tests of being in the world and possessing a mind and free will to choose what to believe, if anything.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One question that must be answered is All*h the G*d of Abraham, the G*d of Issac, and the G*d of Jacob?

That's another good question. It seems in large part that Mohammed worshipped the same one true G-d, but there are also many contradictions. Islam claims to accept all the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures, although it modifies the details of their lives and claims that Jewish prophets were Muslims instead of Jews. As I noted before, it says that the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Bible confirm the Koran. But when it says in the name Allah to kill or subjugate the unbelievers - including Jews and Christians - it is impossible that those commands could have come from the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the G-d of the Torah whose statutes, promises and covenant are eternal and who promised that the kingship of David and his descendants will endure forever. G-d never states that eternal life is guaranteed to those who die fighting holy war. I could go verse by verse and show all the ways in which the Koran and the Hadiths violate Judaism and Christianity while simultaneously claiming to derive validity by upholding those older religions. Some like to say the G-d of Judaism is violent, which is a wrongheaded and a biased view, but Allah truly appears bloodthirsty in a great many verses of the Koran.

Now there are those who claim that Allah was adapted from the polytheistic Arab cult that worshipped the moon as god. He may have started out worshipping the moon and then broadened his belief as he came to learn from Jews and Christians. In total, it appears that Islam at least tries to worship the same deity by incorporating much of Judaism and Christianity into itself, but Islam is definitely a corrupted derivation with a corrupted view of its deity in relation to what Judaism and Christianity teach.

By the way, thank you Chongo for adopting the Jewish convention of not fully spelling a holy name.

[imitchellg5]

Having read parts of the Qu'ran, I can't understand HOW it'd be a religion of peace unless the entire world was Islam. Seems like it's very set on war against those who don't believe in Allah, especially in The Accessions. I guess as long as Muslims are apathetic like Christians are, they'll remain peaceful.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, The Accessions and The Verse of Sword are examples of very violent Koranic teachings. It is interesting in reading The Accessions that Allah refers to Mohammed as sinning against him by taking improper things in the course of his wars, but of course Mohammed is forgiven for transgressing his own supposed revelation.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

More and more I don't believe that Islam is entirely compatible with the modern world.

It's a relic that the enlightenment left behind, from an age when brutal religious monarchies were the world norm. Before the kneejerks kick in with the usual lame attempts at moral-relevance, other major religions have been dragged forward into the modern age (albeit with much kicking and screaming along the way), and so (for the most part) have adjusted to concepts like separation of church and state, religious freedom and tolerance, human rights, private property, modern science and philosophy, market economies, etc.

Islam, in many ways, still resides far in the past on most of those issues.

This wouldn't be such a bad thing, if not for the fact that the more radical and violent aspects of the religion mesh and clash with the modern world in ways we're only now beginning to come to grips with. For example- a 12th century mindset with easy access to 21st century weapons= war, terrorism and nothing but trouble. Sticking ones head in the sand, or pointing fingers at others who have the will to acknowledge it, won't change that.

Modern western nations can handle owning technologies and weapons that are capable of killing tens of thousands of people and even destroying the world. (The argument about if such weapons should exist or not is moot- they do, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle).

Nations with a religious mindset stuck centuries in the past, absolutely CAN'T handle such technology, and should never be allowed to until such time as they too can be brought forward into a post-enlightenment mindset.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Nations with a religious mindset stuck centuries in the past, absolutely CAN'T handle such technology, and should never be allowed to until such time as they too can be brought forward into a post-enlightenment mindset.

How do you think this statement relates to our last presidency?

[Big Mac]

Here's another point worth making: Some who say Islam is a religion of peace mean that it's a peaceful religion for those under the banner of Islam. But that isn't even true because Muslims have been blowing fellow Muslims up in Iraq and Afghanistan for a while now.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

How do you think this statement relates to our last presidency?

The last president ran smack dab into exactly what I was talking about when people with 12th century mindsets used 21st century technology (and not even weapons, but tools of transportation) to attack the west.

Then, even after being confronted with it head on, a lot of people did this:

Sticking ones head in the sand, or pointing fingers at others who have the will to acknowledge it...

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The last president ran smack dab into exactly what I was talking about when people with 12th century mindsets used 21st century technology (and not even weapons, but tools of transportation) to attack the west.

Do you think it could be argued that Bush's actions were a result of someone with an antiquated mindset misusing modern technology?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Do you think it could be argued that Bush's actions were a result of someone with an antiquated mindset misusing modern technology?

...Before the kneejerks kick in with the usual lame attempts at moral-relativism..

[olePigeon]

Just like most other religions, it's as peaceful or hateful as the people in power make it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One question that must be answered is All*h the G*d of Abraham, the G*d of Issac, and the G*d of Jacob?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now there are those who claim that Allah was adapted from the polytheistic Arab cult that worshipped the moon as god. He may have started out worshipping the moon and then broadened his belief as he came to learn from Jews and Christians. In total, it appears that Islam at least tries to worship the same deity by incorporating much of Judaism and Christianity into itself, but Islam is definitely a corrupted derivation with a corrupted view of its deity in relation to what Judaism and Christianity teach.

By the way, thank you Chongo for adopting the Jewish convention of not fully spelling a holy name.

Islam in English = submission.

One man's take on the moon/rock theory. He discusses the " There in no... " creed. YouTube - Who is Allah? Part 4

[olePigeon]

Can God read peoples' minds?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Islam in English = submission.

One man's take on the moon/rock theory. He discusses the " There in no... " creed. YouTube - Who is Allah? Part 4

Yep. I've got "allah" as one of Mecca's old pagan gods too. or Hadad, whichever you like.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Just like most other religions, it's as peaceful or hateful as the people in power make it.

Ditto.

[sek929]

Edit: whoops, wrong thread.

[OAW]

The fundamental premise of the question in the OP is deeply flawed. To try to reduce one of the world's great religions down to a simplistic "peace vs. war" basis is rather foolish in and of itself. But out of respect for the request or serious debate ... I'll give my two cents.

The world's seven largest religions (and approximate # of adherents) are as follows:

Christiantity - 2.1 - 2.2 billion
Islam - 1.3 - 1.6 billion
Hinduism - .95 to 1.4 billion
Buddhism - 250 - 500 million
Sikhism - 20 - 30 million
Judaism - 12 - 18 million
Baha'i - 7.6 - 7.9 million

Now of these seven largest religions four are Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i) and 3 are Dharmic (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism). Though it is not completely accurate, some loosely refer to Abrahamic religions as "Western" and Dharmic religions as "Eastern". In light of this I'll try to be more specific on what I think the issue is as it relates to the OP. In his initial Big Mac stated ...

Originally Posted by Big Mac

With that said, I know that Islam is inherently a violent religion that seeks to bring the world to unified adherence to its doctrine through any means necessary including barbaric violence.

IMO the fundamental issue here is proselytization. The "I know God better than you know God." mentality. And whether or not violence is an acceptable means to that end. The "Eastern" or "Dharmic" religions essentially have no concept of proselytizing. Consequently, you don't see much by the way of religiously motivated violence in their history with an aim toward forcing non-believers to adhere to the tenets of these faiths. "Western" or "Abrahamic" religions are a bit of a mixed bag. The oldest Abrahamic religion, Judaism, is not known for proselytizing. While it does accept converts, Jews have traditionally been rather insular and not focused on expanding their numbers through conversion (willing or otherwise). That might have something to do with that whole "chosen people" thing. The newest Abrahamic religion, the Baha'i Faith, actively seeks converts but does not pursue "missionary work". It does not seek to supplant the culture of the communities that it spreads to, but rather, provide a means for its adherents to apply the principles of the faith within the existing cultural context. Now the largest (by far) of the "Western" or "Abrahamic" religions are Christianity and Islam ... and they are a totally different ball of wax altogether when it comes to proselytizing. Both religions actively encourage it and make it one o the basic tenets of faith. That is, "spreading the word" is required in order to be considered a good Christian or a good Muslim. Both religions also officially condemn forced conversions either scripturally (Quran Sura 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion") or doctrinally (Pope Paul VI Declaration on Religious Freedom "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will."). Having said that, the historical record clearly shows that both Christianity and Islam have spread as far and wide as they have as a result of conquest and violence. They are sitting at #1 and #2 of the total number of adherents respectively in large part because of this.

So is Islam a religion or peace or a religion of violence? No more or less than Christianity is IMO when one looks at the historical record. The difference we see in today's modern times is that most "Christian" nations are by and large secular. There are no "Christian States" and political power is no longer wielded by the Church as it was in centuries past. The same is not necessarily true of Islam. "Islamic States" do exist, primarily in the Middle East, where Islam and in particular Sharia law is the ideological foundation for the political institutions. Religious freedom is highly restricted in those states without question, but said countries are by no means expansionist. Half of the countries in the worlds that have majority Muslim populations are secular states or states where there is no official state religion. And as quiet as its kept, most of the world's Muslims do not live in the Middle East where we are seeing so much conflict. And the conflict we do see in the Middle East is over control of the land in the Middle East. Islam is the second largest religion in the US and yet we don't see some large concerted effort to "convert" the US population.

Those who believe that Islam is seeking to "dominate the world" are suffering from serious fear and paranoia. And a profound lack of historical knowledge. Christianity was spread to the four corners of the globe primarily through colonialism. Islam spread by conquest from the Arabian peninsula to North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Beyond that Islam spread primarily through Muslim traders. Hardly a recipe for global domination and a drop in the bucket compared to European colonialism by any objective measure.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Those who believe that Islam is seeking to "dominate the world" are suffering from serious fear and paranoia.

Either that or we know which way round to read the koran.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Those who believe that Islam is seeking to "dominate the world" are suffering from serious fear and paranoia.

Thanks, but I'm not taking any chances. Better safe than sorry.

-t

[olePigeon]

I want Christianity banned as well. I'm sick of your religious beliefs creeping into government.

[imitchellg5]

Say, have you heard of a dystopia?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I want Christianity banned as well. I'm sick of your religious beliefs creeping into government.

Go to Russia or China. Their government is soooo much better, because it's soooo much more neutral.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Just like most other religions, it's as peaceful or hateful as the people in power make it.

Although religious propaganda from governments has an effect, the unavoidable fact is that Islam preaches unrestricted "holy" war against the non-believer.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Go to Russia or China. Their government is soooo much better, because it's soooo much more neutral.

I know that was sarcastic, but I'd take Putin over POTUS any day of the week.
13% flat tax speaks volumes.

[LegendaryPinkOx]

Religion is what its followers make it to be.

[design219]

Originally Posted by LegendaryPinkOx 

Religion is what its followers make it to be.

Fred Phelps & co bears this out.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It's so 'peaceful' that we're told in the other thread that you can't pass public ordinances against certain architecture without the threat of violence.

Notice that Hindus threaten violence when told they can't erect beehive-domed temples all over the place. Oh wait, that's right. They don't.

Notice that we have to worry about upsetting moderate Buddists all the time if we don't have golden buddahs on every corner... oh wait, that's right, we don't. And heck we don't even have to use the codeword 'moderate' meaning: "not at odds with the 21st century".

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's so 'peaceful' that we're told in the other thread that you can't pass public ordinances against certain architecture without the threat of violence.

And just who made such a statement in the other thread? Please. A link would be greatly appreciated. Or are you just making sh*t up?

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's so 'peaceful' that we're told in the other thread that you can't pass public ordinances against certain architecture without the threat of violence.

Notice that Hindus threaten violence when told they can't erect beehive-domed temples all over the place. Oh wait, that's right. They don't.

Notice that we have to worry about upsetting moderate Buddhists all the time if we don't have golden buddahs on every corner... oh wait, that's right, we don't. And heck we don't even have to use the codeword 'moderate' meaning: "not at odds with the 21st century".

Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists as are quite capable of violent acts, all one has to do is study the fight for Indian Independence and the violence that occurred during and after partition. M.K. Gandhi was assassinated by a fellow Hindu. There is the storming of the Golden Temple (Operation Blue Star) This resulted in Indira Gandhi being assassinated by by her Sikh bodyguards. Buddhists are taking up arms in in Sri Lanka and other Asian countries.

[OAW]

Indeed. But was this religiously motivated violence? Or simply violence committed by people who happened to be Hindus, Sikhs, or Buddhists?

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed. But was this religiously motivated violence? Or simply violence committed by people who happened to be Hindus, Sikhs, or Buddhists?

OAW

In the case of the India/Pakistan partition, it was very much motivated my religion. Direct Action Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religious violence in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indra Gandhi was assassinated because the Sikhs felt she desecrated the Golden Temple.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists as are quite capable of violent acts, all one has to do is study the fight for Indian Independence and the violence that occurred during and after partition. M.K. Gandhi was assassinated by a fellow Hindu. There is the storming of the Golden Temple (Operation Blue Star) This resulted in Indira Gandhi being assassinated by by her Sikh bodyguards. Buddhists are taking up arms in in Sri Lanka and other Asian countries.

I mentioned specific reasons for Hindus and Buddhists to be violent, not said they weren't capable of violence.

The day we see Hindus or Buddhists flipping out over cartoons, books, films, styles of architecture, etc. etc. then I'll change my statement.

[Big Mac]

I don't know how the notion was introduced to this thread that Sikhs are necessarily peaceful, and I already referenced the fact that Hindus can be violent. It's Buddhists who are generally not, but there are always exceptions.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by LegendaryPinkOx 

Religion is what its followers make it to be.

Finally, something intelligent was said in this thread.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Although religious propaganda from governments has an effect, the unavoidable fact is that some lines in the Koran preaches unrestricted "holy" war against the non-believer.

Yes, there is violence advocated in the Koran. No, that doesn't mean that Islam is "inherently" violent. The Jewish Bible is filled with God-mandated violence, but that doesn't mean the Jewish religion is inherently violent. Read LegendaryPinkOk's comment until it sinks in.

Oh, that's right, Big Mac is ignoring me. Oh well.

[Big Mac]

I chose to look at this particular post of yours, lpk. And I'm glad you made those claims. I already explained the manifestations and theological limitations of violence in Judaism in besson's religion thread, which you may have missed or ignored. To recap, Judaism allows for violence limited to self-defense, the settlement of the Land of Israel and the defense of the Land of Israel. Aside from that, Jews are prohibited from using violence even against their enemies. In contrast, Islam's violence on behalf of spreading the faith so that Islam becomes the religion of the world is unrestricted. (Muslims are also openly permitted to lie to non-Muslims, whereas Judaism counts lying to non-Jews as a serious sin.)

You really need to watch the documentary I'm going to link to because I know for a fact that you don't understand that violent mandates of Islam. Yes, certain verses of the Koran are peaceful, but they are abrogated and nullified according to the religion by the chronologically later verses. The documentary I'm linking to goes through all of this; I made this thread specifically to promote it in the face of views such as yours.

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

All of you who think like lpk, watch this documentary - I think it will be edifying for you. Let me know if you think you can refute any of it.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Finally, something intelligent was said in this thread.
Yes, there is violence advocated in the Koran. No, that doesn't mean that Islam is "inherently" violent. The Jewish Bible is filled with God-mandated violence, but that doesn't mean the Jewish religion is inherently violent. Read LegendaryPinkOk's comment until it sinks in.

Oh, that's right, Big Mac is ignoring me. Oh well.

There isn't a single historical/religious manuscript that does not include some instances of violence. The(Christian) Bible's Book of Revelations chose to describe Armageddon as the war between good and evil.

If you cannot distinguish the difference between violence and the promotion of violence(in everyday life/practice), maybe you need to step back and let the difference sink in. Ever wonder why Christian cant claim justification from their religious texts ?..... "Thou shall not kill"... it's thats simple.

The Christian Bible(specifically the Roman Catholic) has "Thou shall not kill" as a commandment. That didnt stop the Church committing(imo) atrocities in the dark ages. Christianity has(even with resistance from inside) "grown up"... evolved, and imo become better.

That's in contrast to:
1. people "claiming" Islam is the "religion of peace"
2. the religion deliberately preaching the PRACTICE of discrimination
3. promotion of violence in it's texts, which has been quoted multiple times by it's followers as justification
4. leaving itself open to such grotesque interpretations by it's followers(whose fault is that?)
5. and above all, resisting any change(even for the better) for millennia

How many major world religions today preach the practice of discrimination and promote wars/killing ?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's so 'peaceful' that we're told in the other thread that you can't pass public ordinances against certain architecture without the threat of violence.

Notice that Hindus threaten violence when told they can't erect beehive-domed temples all over the place. Oh wait, that's right. They don't.

Notice that we have to worry about upsetting moderate Buddists all the time if we don't have golden buddahs on every corner... oh wait, that's right, we don't. And heck we don't even have to use the codeword 'moderate' meaning: "not at odds with the 21st century".

I second that.

The muslim press were so quick to jump on that bit of news out of Switzerland. Yet when Synagogues, Churches, Temples, Buddhist statutes are destroyed they seem oblivious. They(not just the press) seem to want "equality" when it suits them outside the muslim world, but it's apparently just a one-way street...when it concerns muslim nations. Shameful hypocracy.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

2. the religion deliberately preaching the PRACTICE of discrimination

That's true of many other religions, including more conservative followers of Christianity and Judaism: take `mixed marriages,' for instance when someone from one faith wants to marry someone from another faith. At the time of my grandparents, a Protestant marrying a Catholic was a problem! Ditto for many Jews: they want to (and are pressured to) marry another Jew. This is a form of discrimination.

Islam is not so different from Christianity some time ago: for the most part, it hasn't arrived in the 21st century, yes. But it's not so different from where other religions were not too long ago. In Europe, the line between Protestants and Catholics was drawn in blood during the Thirty Years' War.

[Hawkeye_a]

Well, that line was drawn by man imo (inter-faith marriages)....that seems more like a social taboo than anything(at least in my experience). Either way, neither Christianity nor Judaism would issue "fathwas" or encourage beheading/stoning/lashing of those who broke those social norms, and no Christian today would ever find justification for such barbarism in the Bible. Many in my extended family have married across faiths (men and women), and i doubt any of them received death threats or were shunned by the church, etc.

What i'm getting at is, all people are in some way discriminatory, some more than others. but i'm not aware of the Bible(ie the religion specifically) preaching and encouraging that nonsence, be it social/economic discrimination, the way Islam seems to. If anything, a quick glance at the map of the world should provide a decent indicator of which cultures practice discrimination(by law and practice) today and to what relative degree. Europe ? N.America ? Australia ? Japan ?

While i dont disagree that some terrible things have been done by the Church...... the ability to change from within, no matter how small that ability was, is what has lead us here, and what has, for the most part brought us out of the dark ages. imo. Has Islam(or those who practice it) changed/improved since it came into existence ? or are they still stuck in medieval times with their main objective being geographic conquest at any cost ? could it be that Islam specifically prohibits change of any kind ?(some of my muslim friends have told me this and i really dont care to verify it). If Islam is indeed a religion of peace, i dont think there should be a problem to hear church bells in Mecca on Sunday morning or a Buddhist temple in Baghdad. I'm sure the religion, which the people follow so adamantly, would not find any reason to stop that from happening eh ? I mean it's not like they commit murder over cartoons and books(for which they cite justification for in their 'holy' texts)

That argument that Islam is going through the same "phase" as Christianity did is such a poor excuse imo.
1. Christianity has evolved through the millennia, Islam has for the most part.... not imo. this "phase" seems to be the only "phase"
2. The mistakes of one do not justify those of another, especially when you have a phase difference of a few centuries and well documented history to learn from.
3. I as a 'non-muslim' am the target of that rampant discrimination/racism and find myself(or my kin) in their cross hairs around the globe. I'm not going to accept an excuse that it's just 'growing pains' for a religion that refuses to grow.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Well, that line was drawn by man imo (inter-faith marriages)....that seems more like a social taboo than anything(at least in my experience). Either way, neither Christianity nor Judaism would issue "fathwas" or encourage beheading/stoning/lashing of those who broke those social norms, and no Christian today would ever find justification for such barbarism in the Bible.

There is a fair amount of violence in the Bible -- including punishments we would think of as torture today. You're right that today (most) Christians wouldn't encourage such barbaric rituals. However, if you look into the past, you see that similar things have been done in the name of the cross as well.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Many in my extended family have married across faiths (men and women), and i doubt any of them received death threats or were shunned by the church, etc.

I was speaking of the past, not the present.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

If anything, a quick glance at the map of the world should provide a decent indicator of which cultures practice discrimination(by law and practice) today and to what relative degree. Europe ? N.America ? Australia ? Japan ?

The reason countries with Christian origins have grown (which is, historically speaking, a relatively recent development) is that they have moved away from religion as a way to order society, a process which started in the late 18th, early 19th century. This is what is still lacking in most Islamic countries. It's not Islam, it's the focus on religion. Ever since the age of enlightenment, Western nation flourished scientifically, economically and politically. If history had taken a different course, we could have been to the moon a thousand years ago.

My point is that Western nations are so successful not because of Christianity, but because people have moved beyond Christianity as an all-explaining absolute order in life.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Has Islam(or those who practice it) changed/improved since it came into existence ? or are they still stuck in medieval times with their main objective being geographic conquest at any cost ? could it be that Islam specifically prohibits change of any kind ?

You can't make such broad generalizations. Some Islamic countries (e. g. Turkey and Iran) have a very, very rich and deep culture that reaches far beyond Islam. There is a tradition of a national state in both cases. Compare that to Afghanistan, a country that is a recent invention of geopolitics has a very different history altogether.

Turks and Iranians have a form of democracy (by no means perfect, of course) and it would be unfair to say they are caught in the Middle Ages. For countries like Afghanistan, this may be true, though. But you can't put them all in the same category.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

That argument that Islam is going through the same "phase" as Christianity did is such a poor excuse imo.

It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. When it comes to religion, I'm an equal opportunity offender. The only thing I'm adamantly opposing is the idea that there are `better' religions.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

1. Christianity has evolved through the millennia, Islam has for the most part.... not imo. this "phase" seems to be the only "phase"

Not Christianity has really evolved, society has. The last time Christianity has really evolved was thanks to Luther -- which ended up in a war that lasted 30 years (I'm not placing blame on the people who were behind the reformation, I'm just stating historical facts). The bloody times in Europe and around the world ended when the barriers placed on by clergy had been torn down.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

2. The mistakes of one do not justify those of another, especially when you have a phase difference of a few centuries and well documented history to learn from.

You're absolutely correct.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

There is a fair amount of violence in the Bible -- including punishments we would think of as torture today. You're right that today (most) Christians wouldn't encourage such barbaric rituals. However, if you look into the past, you see that similar things have been done in the name of the cross as well.

Indeed. Stoning for sure.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The reason countries with Christian origins have grown (which is, historically speaking, a relatively recent development) is that they have moved away from religion as a way to order society, a process which started in the late 18th, early 19th century. This is what is still lacking in most Islamic countries. It's not Islam, it's the focus on religion.

I made a similar point earlier.

OAW

[hyteckit]

The only religion of peace is Buddhism.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The only religion of peace is Buddhism.

Sorry to bust your balloon, but there are reports of Buddhists arming themselves in Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia against Muslim insurgents
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Thailand's shadowy southern insurgency