# Discuss and Debate:  "Islam is a Religion of Peace"



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

This thread is an evolution of a discussion that cropped up in another thread.  Take a point of view on the topic above and then, using things like *logic*, *research*, *experience*, and *reason*, support your position on the topic.  Cite and post links to sources to support your point of view.

Be civil and be reasonable.  No emotional responses, no personal attacks.  I'll go ahead and warn everyone that if I think your posts do not add to the conversation, I'm just going to summarily delete them.

Game on!


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 12, 2012)

Do you want people to "sign up" and have it in even teams or as a one v one v one?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 12, 2012)

I havenothing positive to say so will say nothing.(other than this)


----------



## fox1371 (Jan 12, 2012)

Hmmm interesting debate topic.  I would say that if no other religion existed in the world, then yes it would be a religion of peace.  However since this is not the reality of things, I think that there is enough proof showing that it is not.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 12, 2012)

I think the debate will be SS vs me lol. I'm preparing some stuff right now. I'll post it in a few.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I think the debate will be SS vs me lol. I'm preparing some stuff right now. I'll post it in a few.


 
You have at least one other compatriot ;)



SpitfireV said:


> Do you want people to "sign up" and have it in even teams or as a one v one v one?


 
Group effort.  Pile on whichever side you see fit.


----------



## Brill (Jan 12, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Be civil and be reasonable.


 
Pretend this post is a mentally challeged female in a "ninja suit" and I just used an old GSM phone to remotely detonate a SVEST that this post is wearing.

Islam cannot ethically be used in the same sentence as civility or be associated with a resonable person. Case in point: attempt to have this exact same discussion in (insert Islamic country of your choice). Please prove me wrong.

Delete away if you must but the memory of those lost in this fight against Islam are forever remembered in Northern Virginia.



Edited to add caveat: I lived in a Muslim country for 3 years and have worked in several Muslim countries exclusive of the OEF and OIF theater.

I have learned over the last 40 years that if someone states a "fact" about themselves, that "fact" is usually contradictory.  If the believers feel it necessary to say that Islam is a religion of peace, it is most likely not.  How many countries openly accepted Islam and were not forced to convert or be sanctioned (death, taxes, lower social status, etc)?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

lindy said:


> Pretend this post is a mentally challeged female in a "ninja suit" and I just used an old GSM phone to remotely detonate a SVEST that this post is wearing.
> 
> Islam cannot ethically be used in the same sentence as civility or be associated with a resonable person. Case in point: attempt to have this exact same discussion in (insert Islamic country of your choice). Please prove me wrong.
> 
> ...


 
Easy, brother ;)  I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not going to delete your post because I think it can be instructive.

We're not currently nor have we ever been in a "fight against Islam."  I've never operated under an EXORD that said "go out and defeat Islam," and I don't suspect you or anyone else has, either.  My orders _have_ instructed me to deter and defeat AQ and associated organizations (who are religiously motivated) but IMO that is an entirely different thing.  In fact, I think our true enemies would LOVE it if the current struggle could be cast in religious terms, it would serve their interests well.  Also, we're not in "one of those" countries, we're here in the US (well, most of us anyway) so I think we'll be alright having a meaningful discussion on this topic.

Now, if you think Islam is an existential threat to the US, or if Islam is incompatible with US values, or if you think that the AQ EXORD is the same as declaring a fight against Islam, I think you could make a case for that.  It just needs a bit of fleshing out.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 12, 2012)

Alrighty. Class got out early, so I get to partake earlier than planned. I'll preface this saying my mind is not definitively made up one way or the other. I understand this is a touchy subject, & I sympathize with those whom have lost friends in the current conflict (I have lost many as well).Nevertheless, I will argue for Islam being a religion of peace (in theory) for 2 reasons:
1). Mainly, because it seems to be the minority opinion on SS
2). The books I've read & courses I have taken advocate said view- to a certain extent.  

Also, it may take me awhile to respond, but I will eventually. I have a crotch load of writing & reading to do in college. Also, my notes from Islamic Civ are in disarray, so I'm currently trying to organize them.
Again, thanks to Marauder  & everyone contributing for the opportunity to engage you all & learn. Semper Fi.

I guess we can just dive into one of the bigger ones- Islam & tolerance. I figure we should start first with the Quran itself & what it teaches.

I'll start with one verse as an example. QC's tagline has Surah 3:28 on it:
* Let not the Believers take the Unbelievers as friends - rather than the Believers.  And whoever does that, then there is nothing from Allâh in any matter; unless that you only protect yourselves from them a protection.  Thus Allâh cautions you of Himself; for towards Allâh is the eventual coming.*​ 
Understandably this seems intolerant, but this surah was "revealed" at a time when Islam was currently battling unbelievers (post- battle of Badr & Uhud), so this surah was essentially an was to keep OPSEC. 

It is also important to note that the above is simply one translation. My copy of the Quran says: "Let believers not make friends with infidels IN PREFERENCE to the faithful." If this is the case, this correlates with what Paul admonishes in 2 Cor. 6:14 (NASB):
*Do not be bound together with unbelievers, for what partnership can righteousness have with lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?*​


----------



## AWP (Jan 12, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> We're not currently nor have we ever been in a "fight against Islam."


 
I would beg to differ, but that might be ANOTHER thread to consider though I could maybe make the argument that "religion of peace" and "war on Islam" are tangentially related.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I would beg to differ, but that might be ANOTHER thread to consider though I could maybe make the argument that "religion of peace" and "war on Islam" are tangentially related.


 
I think you could make that case in this thread if you wanted.  And perhaps I should have said "declared" war on Islam.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 12, 2012)

What intolerance do you all find in the Quran, whether it be towards unbelievers, women, etc.?


----------



## policemedic (Jan 12, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> This thread is an evolution of a discussion that cropped up in another thread. Take a point of view on the topic above and then, using things like *logic*, *research*, *experience*, and *reason*, support your position on the topic. Cite and post links to sources to support your point of view.
> 
> Be civil and be reasonable. No emotional responses, no personal attacks. I'll go ahead and warn everyone that if I think your posts do not add to the conversation, I'm just going to summarily delete them.
> 
> Game on!


 
Scholarly debate complete with APA format? Let me get my popcorn 

More when I have time.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

policemedic said:


> Scholarly debate complete with APA format? Let me get my popcorn
> 
> More when I have time.


 
lol

I just don't want people pulling stuff out of thin air and inventing "sources."


----------



## policemedic (Jan 12, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> Alrighty. Class got out early, so I get to partake earlier than planned. I'll preface this saying my mind is not definitively made up one way or the other. I understand this is a touchy subject, & I sympathize with those whom have lost friends in the current conflict (I have lost many as well).Nevertheless, I will argue for Islam being a religion of peace (in theory) for 2 reasons:
> 1). Mainly, because it seems to be the minority opinion on SS
> 2). The books I've read & courses I have taken advocate said view- to a certain extent.
> 
> ...


 
Kudos on having the intellectual courage to examine and argue the unpopular opinion.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 12, 2012)

policemedic said:


> Kudos on having the intellectual courage to examine and argue the unpopular opinion.


thanks, but I think it's more curiosity than courage.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> What intolerance do you all find in the Quran, whether it be towards unbelievers, women, etc.?


 
The first thing that comes to mind is that the "real" Koran can only be read in Arabic, everything else is "the meaning of the Koran."  I think this comes from "behold! I have given you an Arabic Koran, written in a clear Arabic tongue," or words to that effect.  So pretty elitist there.  I think this is also an example of why it's important to understand the interpretation of the Koran, not just what's written there in black and white.

A couple of passages that IMO reflect intolerance of non-Muslims:



> *2:191* And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
> *2:192* But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
> *2:193* And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
> 
> *2:216* Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.


 

Position of women within Islam:



> *2:222* They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
> *2:223* Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).
> 
> *2:222* They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.


 
 I think another place to look for intolerance in the interpretation of Islam is to check out Bin Laden's "fatwas" and take a look at the passages that he uses to justify his actions.


----------



## Brill (Jan 12, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> We're not currently nor have we ever been in a "fight against Islam."


 
I have not been everywhere nor have I done everything BUT, other than a few Serbs, I have enabled the k/c of only Muslims.  I completely agree that we cannot fight a religion however I firmly believe that Islam is fighting us.  Just look at the numbers.  How many non-Muslims have been killed by allied forces in the last 10 years of the GWOT?  How many non-Muslims have killed allied forces since GWOT?  Go back to the 80's when the war really started and it is very clear.

Why do Islamists tell all Muslims it their religious duty to wage jihad against infidels?  My Baptist preacher never declared a crusade against drugs, alcohol, strip clubs, music, kite flying, females driving cars or voting, etc.

Most countries of the world allow freedom of religion with the overwhelming exception of predominately Muslim countries.  I can say that in my travels when we crossed from a country where the majority were Muslims to a "Christian country" there was a NOTICEBLE difference.  There was an disctint feeling of acceptance and tolerance.  So much so, that my children even sensed it.

The holy Qur'an can say whatever: it's believers show me otherwise with their actions.  Please identify one Christian group that has a history of beheading it's enemies.

Malestrom, I challenge you to take your English Qur'an to Saudi Arabia and take it to a mosque.  You will quickly be identified a takfir, regardless of your citizenship.  Schoolin' is great but life experiences will ultimately cause one to question academics. 

I am just a guy trained to sift through large amounts of data to find patterns that identify characteristics and predictable behavior in order to exploit them.  <-- I totally just made that shi'ite up.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 12, 2012)

Most know my opinions on Islam (that it is not a religion of peace) and I really don’t see the need to support my view/opinion. However, taking a snap shot of the last 50 years of history and how Islamic nations/groups have interacted with the world as a whole should be evidence enough to support the theory that they are not a religion of peace. Other source material would be, the Koran (there guide in the Islamic religion), also we bring into play the many political and or religious teachings that have called for Muslims to rise up and attack the enemy (i.e. the non-believer).

I think that the argument could be made that Islam is a religion of peace for those who are Muslim, as they supposedly only believe in killing the non-believer is part of their religious duty. However, I would argue that even within Islam the religion is not peaceful, as they continue to have an internal civil war between the two primary formats of the religion, the Sunni and the Shia.

Then of course there is the argument that there are extremist Muslims and non-extremist Muslims, but yet we find that most of the Islamic organizations give financial support to the “extremist” throughout the world. I would say that there are a few Muslims who are not “true practitioners” (I.e. people who are not as deeply involved in the religion) who are peaceful. However, most true Muslims would consider those non-practitioners to be going against Islam. So based on the Islamic religion as a whole, I would consider the non-practitioners to not be a good representation of the Islamic religion.

As for links and supporting documentation, I am not going to spend the next hour supporting my opinions. If you disagree with my opinions, you might want to do some research on the subject and the historical events throughout Islam. Further more if you research Muhammad the profit of Islam and the individual responsible for the creating Islam, you will find that he was more or less a bandit who used war and conquer and destroy methods to spread the religion of Islam. Thus further supporting my theory that Islam has never been religion of peace and never will be.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

lindy said:


> I have not been everywhere nor have I done everything BUT, other than a few Serbs, I have enabled the k/c of only Muslims. I completely agree that we cannot fight a religion however I firmly believe that Islam is fighting us. Just look at the numbers. How many non-Muslims have been killed by allied forces in the last 10 years of the GWOT? How many non-Muslims have killed allied forces since GWOT? Go back to the 80's when the war really started and it is very clear.
> 
> Why do Islamists tell all Muslims it their religious duty to wage jihad against infidels? My Baptist preacher never declared a crusade against drugs, alcohol, strip clubs, music, kite flying, females driving cars or voting, etc.
> 
> ...


 

I Googled "Christian group that has a history of beheading its enemies" just now and got several historical examples.  ;)  But this isn't a compare/contrast discussion between Islam and Christianity, although that might be a good discussion for another thread.  For now we're trying to focus solely on Islam, and to determine whether or not it is "a religion of peace."


----------



## Brill (Jan 12, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I Googled "Christian group that has a history of beheading its enemies" just now and got several historical examples. ;)


 
And the first one was...

http://www.meforum.org/713/beheading-in-the-name-of-islam

(I would argue that LFM isn't really a Christian group either unlike Los _Caballeros Templarios_.)

Your witness.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

lindy said:


> And the first one was...
> 
> http://www.meforum.org/713/beheading-in-the-name-of-islam
> 
> ...


 
lol

You can't always go with the FIRST Google result, sometimes you have to scroll down a little.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm



> Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]


 
Googled "Charlemagne beheading Saxons" and got this from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars



> It was in response to this setback that Charlemagne at the Blood court of Verden ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons who had been caught practising paganism after converting to Christianity, while Widukind escaped to Denmark again.


 
So, there's an example of Christians cutting peoples' heads off.  But again, I don't think it proves or disproves the fundamental question of this discussion.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

This has been fun, but I have to get ready to go to bed.  I hope that this thread stays on track and doesn't have to be closed overnight.  'night, all.


----------



## Brill (Jan 12, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> lol
> 
> You can't always go with the FIRST Google result, sometimes you have to scroll down a little.
> 
> ...


----------



## Servimus (Jan 12, 2012)

The Islamic community is still at odds determining which "books", if you will, are canonical. I don't see what headway is going to be made here if the Islamic community itself doesn't even know what Islam is.

I think that point is also the crux of this discussion. Why is it that in Islamic texts, we see some stuff that is overwhelmingly violent, while then we see pieces that would fit in nicely in the New Testament? The point is, we are looking at Islam like it's Christianity. Islam doesn't have, nor has it ever had, the structure Christianity has had. That's why there are so many divisions in Islam, so many "schools" of thought. That's why some Muslims look at OBL as a terrorist and others view him as a religious freedom fighter or whatnot. That's why Muslims don't even agree with whether or not their leader is divinely ordained, or if he's just the leader of the _Ummah_, Islamic community.That's why some Islamic texts sound like they were made by Sandusky while others sound like they were made by Mother Theresa.

You might as well be arguing over whether or not the color "fucktard" is appealing. It doesn't exist. There's no defined thing we can argue about here, IMO.


----------



## Brill (Jan 12, 2012)

I totally stole this from PS.com but found it EXTREMELY relevant.

http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/takeaction.asp?id=384


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 12, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> The first thing that comes to mind is that the "real" Koran can only be read in Arabic, everything else is "the meaning of the Koran." I think this comes from "behold! I have given you an Arabic Koran, written in a clear Arabic tongue," or words to that effect. So pretty elitist there. I think this is also an example of why it's important to understand the interpretation of the Koran, not just what's written there in black and white.
> 
> _I agree with you partially. I find it personally frustrating that I cannot (yet) read the "true" Quran, but part of me admires their devotion to keeping it as close to the original text as possible. A good example is Christianity. There are a bunch of translations out there that are so off the wall it's baffling. & any many cases, the English translations cannot capture the full meaning of the text (a good example is the part of Jesus telling Peter to "feed my sheep." The english translations utterly fail to convey the "emotion" of the story. But that's a different topic._
> 
> ...


_OBL's fatwas were so off the wall that they were panned by those whom are actually authorized to issue fatwas. The 2 biggest Islamic Universities denounced them immediately & said they had no legitimacy- I can't remember the universities off the top of my head though. Only Islamic scholars can issue them, so he had no ground to. Clerics in Spain actually issued their own fatwa against OBL in '05: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150066,00.html_

_Unfortunately, like you said, the interpretation of Islam had led to a lot of intolerance. This intolerance came later in Islamic history however, due to various reasons I will get into later._


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 12, 2012)

Something else I've noticed a lot of people bring up is the recent history of Islam as perfect evidence for them being anything but peaceful. I don't have the time to get into this in detail tonight, but just food for thought for when I pick it back up tomorrow:

A lot of this starts in the mid-1700s. I'll take some highlight's from Karen Armstrong's book "Islam:"

- People need to understand that the West "came into themselves" at their own pace, over the course of 300 years. Those 4 centuries were marked with a lot of "barbarism" & bloodshed. They had their fair share of revolutions, genocides, religious wars, etc. Countries north of the Alps were bass-ackward for centuries until they slowly began clinging to Greco-Roman culture. Western Europe was behind Byzantium. European countries did not "catch up" to each other until roughly the 13th century. By the 16th century, a rough sense of cohesion was present enough to allow for the "arrival" of the West. 
- The Arab world wasn't as lucky. They had a good run in the 6th & 7th centuries, but it stagnated when they closed the doors of ijtihad (creative thinking). They never got the hegemony the West did. Plus, they were still an agrarian society. They simply could not catch up to the explosion of progress the West was experiencing. They have been playing catch up ever since.
- Europe & American had an economy based on technology & capital, Arabs did not.
- The West's philosophical, political, & economic advances were completely foreign to Arabs. In order to keep the economy going, more people needed to purchase goods. The West's literacy rates skyrocketed, which led to the people wanting a bigger say in government. In order to efficiently utilize human resources, marginalized groups became part of the mainstream society (i.e. the Jews). Because such a high priority was put on efficiency, religious difference suddenly weren't as big of a deal as they use to be. This is a huge reason why democracy became so prevalent: it's what made sense economically.
- To play catchup, the Arab world had to essentially try to force their people into this way of thinking. As previously said, the West did not have that problem. They came to this realization at their own pace, over hundreds of years.
- Because of the rapid explosion in growth, homeland saturation occurred, so new markets were needed, & surrounding agrarian societies fit the bill. The West began colonizing so they could "pull" the agrarian society into their circle. 
- raw materials were provided for export into the European industry, via the colonized area. The colonized country then got cheap Western goods, which ruined the local industry. Only the higher echelons of society in the colonized areas received any Western education, while the lower classes bottomed out because they did not have the education or the perspective to justify what was happening to them. 

So it can be understood why these countries took offense to the intrusion. A people who saw religion & politics as one were suddenyl being told from outsiders that that's not how to do it. "Your way of life is dumb. Here, let us show you how to do it the right way. & oh yeah, watch the rich get richer & your poor family get poorer. See the nice modern towns we just built? Ya, you can't afford them, but you can keep your ratty old village, which is now saturated with the poor & the criminals." Compare it to modern day farmers: I know a great many who feel disenfranchised by modernization. Their hard work doesn't mean as much, they are on the outskirts of society, when they use to be the engine of it. The Arab world did not have the opportunity to be innovative. They had to follow the West or fall out, & even by following they will never catch up. 

There's more on this, but I'll pick it up tomorrow. I'm heading to bed shortly. Looking forward to tomorrow's debate!


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 12, 2012)

Damn didn't see this thread up till now and it's bed time for me. Will try and contribute to it a bit tomorrow, assuming I have some spare time in the evening.


----------



## QC (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> Alrighty. Class got out early, so I get to partake earlier than planned. I'll preface this saying my mind is not definitively made up one way or the other. I understand this is a touchy subject, & I sympathize with those whom have lost friends in the current conflict (I have lost many as well).Nevertheless, I will argue for Islam being a religion of peace (in theory) for 2 reasons:
> 1). Mainly, because it seems to be the minority opinion on SS
> 2). The books I've read & courses I have taken advocate said view- to a certain extent.
> 
> ...


----------



## QC (Jan 13, 2012)

Fuck me it IPhone sucks at the cut and paste shit. Mara please tidy if you will. With the above I had a wry smile to myself as a minority can be acused of hijacking a religion so too did Paul hijack another. 
There's some icky stuff in Leveticus but were wise enough to have taken it today with a grain of salt. The islamists still ( or some of them) still want to live the old way. 
With regard to OBL he didn't have the stature to issue fatwas and this point has since been clarified by Islamic scolars through the 
Amman Declaration. 
SURAH V:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends to one another. He among you who taketh them for friends is ( one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. 
There is too the Sword verses SURAH IX 1-8. the only ones in the koran which do not begin with " in the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful." It makes interesting reading.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

lindy said:


> I totally stole this from PS.com but found it EXTREMELY relevant.
> 
> http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/takeaction.asp?id=384


Thanks for posting that. Honestly I'm hesitant to oppose a man far smarter than I, but I will try. Again, if anyone refutes me you have my thanks for enlightening me.

I just want to point out that while he gives a list of battles to illustrate his point, the earliest date he gives is 732 & the Battle of Tours. I'll use his first example to illustrate my point:

First, this is about a hundred years after Muhammad, during the Umayyad Dynasty. It should be noted there was a lot of turmoil within Islam at this time. The Umayyad caliphate was loathed by many inside it. The Shia look at them as thugs that corrupted Islam & massacred Ali's descendants. Sunnis felt similarly, calling them "irreligious." Only full-blood Arabs were allowed seats of power. Half-Arabs were turned into bastards at best, & non-Arab converts were treated with far more disdain than under previous caliphates. non-Muslims, whom had previously been allowed to worship according to their faith, were placed in an inferior category & had to pay a tax in order to worship. As a result, they eventually decided to convert to save $, which led to a huge drop in tax revenue. This unrest translated into lots of civil war. The Shia literally removed themselves from the political arena during this time because they felt it had been so corrupted that it could not be redeemed. They didn't reenter the political arena until very recently. 

When Abd al-Malik took the thrown, he established the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. This was a big changing point for Islam, & the idea that God had ordained Islam to bring about a new world order came to be. This was al-Malik's way of saying that while Islam was connected to Christianity & Judaism, it now superseded them. 

Like I said, all this did not garnish a lot of support. Bernard Lewis, in his book "The Middle East," goes as far to say
"there was a growing feeling, frequently expressed in literature, that the march of Islamic history had taken a wrong turn, & that the leaders of the community were leading it to sin... In Islam, as ideally conceived, there were to be no priests, no Church, no kings and no nobles, no privileged orders or castes, save only for the self-evident superiority of those who accept the true faith to those who willfully reject it...  The caliphate's purpose was to serve Islam. Instead of serving Islam, they served the interests of small groups of rich & powerful men, who operated by methods that... resembled those of the ancient empires Islam had overthrown."​ 
So we see that this period was far from a general consensus. That is why when Martel defeated Muslim troops in 732, "this was not regarded by Muslims as a great disaster. Western people have often exaggerated it's importance, which was no Waterloo. The Arabs felt no compulsion- religious or otherwise, to conquer Christendom in the name of Islam. Indeed, Europe seemed remarkably unattractive to them: there were few opportunities for trade in that primitive backwater, little booty to be had, and the climate was terrible" (Armstrong, 50).

I won't, nor can I, argue that Islam has always walked the straight & narrow. In fact, things begun to fall apart one way or the other right after Muhammad died. His hope for the Arab world did not live up to expectations. He say Islam as the one true God bringing his word to the Arab people, as he had done for the Jews and the Christians. Muhammad called them "the people of the book." He believed his message was for Arabs. His views on a just society align in a lot of ways (but not all) with how the early Christians ran things in the book of Acts- a community completely devoted to each other, where there is no class & where everyone is united in worship. This vision, much like early Christianity, did not last long. Reality soon trumped idealism (I say this as a Christian). As Islam began to spread across the Arab world, it became clear that this quasi-socialist setup was not working. Add that to the fact that the Quran does not really say much in the way of legislation & governing, nor did Muhammad give instructions on how things should be run when he dies- and you have a bunch of people completely baffled at how to maintain the momentum they had just attained.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

QC said:


> Fuck me it IPhone sucks at the cut and paste shit. Mara please tidy if you will. With the above I had a wry smile to myself as a minority can be acused of hijacking a religion so too did Paul hijack another.
> There's some icky stuff in Leveticus but were wise enough to have taken it today with a grain of salt. The islamists still ( or some of them) still want to live the old way.
> _I agree. There is an unfortunately sizable amount of people who want to live in a way completely incompatible with modern society. _
> 
> ...


----------



## QC (Jan 13, 2012)

Given the above argument at #34, Aesops Fables have nothing to tell us about correct behavior? The Prophet owes much to the Christian & Jewish traditions due in part to his adoption of Jewish words used in the Koran and the stories of the Old Testament which occur throughout the work. Why is this so? Desert Arabs had no tradition to speak of, but I digress. 
I do get the point about historical context but I'd bet my bottom dollar there's many a Muslim that doesn't.
Muslims I'm sure, approach the Koran with a reverent mindset, maybe even moreso because he doesn't understand the background so well.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

QC said:


> Given the above argument at #34, Aesops Fables have nothing to tell us about correct behavior? The Prophet owes much to the Christian & Jewish traditions due in part to his adoption of Jewish words used in the Koran and the stories of the Old Testament which occur throughout the work. Why is this so? Desert Arabs had no tradition to speak of, but I digress.
> I do get the point about historical context but I'd bet my bottom dollar there's many a Muslim that doesn't.
> Muslims I'm sure, approach the Koran with a reverent mindset, maybe even moreso because he doesn't understand the background so well.


_I agree completely. Muhammad most certainly borrowed heavily from Jewish & Christian faith. He actually came to the idea of being one of God's people by talking with Jews about Jacob & Ishmael. That's when he said, we are Ishmail's descendants, and God's people. _

_& there is an abysmal amount of Muslims that do not understand the historical context. I in no way advocate or defend that. These days, blind obedience is inexcusable with the amount of information that is at our fingertips. Unfortunately, lack of context appears to be a problem in all cultures, it is just more obvious in the Muslim world because the extremes of that ignorance have bombs strapped to them. Excellent points you brought up._


----------



## QC (Jan 13, 2012)

http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=293&pubtype=-1
I've just finished this PDF. It's pretty insightful regarding motivation of jihadis and IMO there seems to be no clear cut path to the dark side.


----------



## AWP (Jan 13, 2012)

I guess I'm confused, I thought this thread was to discuss whether Islam is a religion of peace, not a compare and contrast between it and Christianity.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 13, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I guess I'm confused, I thought this thread was to discuss whether Islam is a religion of peace, not a compare and contrast between it and Christianity.


 
Yep; that's why (as I mentioned in the other thread) it's always so hard to have a conversation on this topic.  People keep conflating issues and want to do a comparative analysis instead of a critical one, and to use Christianity to justify the excesses of Islam.  But at least we haven't degraded into name-calling.  Yet.


----------



## AWP (Jan 13, 2012)

Okay, to tie in my premise that we are war with Islam and that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Fundamentally, Islam has not evolved or changed. It began through violence, was maintained with violence, and that pattern continues to this day. There was even a split after Muhammad's death and that split continues to enjoy untold amounts of violence to this day. The religion has no issues with solving internal disputes with violence, so why should an external issue be any different? Islam's growth has always coincided with violence and is only stopped through violence, political discussions or concessions have no room in this area as far as Islamic leaders are concerned.

In the last 50 years, the West has seen an increase in violence from Islamic groups using the teachings of Islam as their justification for those actions. One could argue that it is simply politics with a religious shell...but look at how these groups present their argument for violence to their followers. It always comes back to a religious justification.

Go to a Muslim country, even one as progressive as the United Arab Emirates. Dubai is Vegas in the desert. You want it, you can have it....if you'll do it behind closed doors. Even the UAE has jailed people for having sex outside of marriage...Westerners. Public display of affection on the wrong beach? Don't collect $200. The UAE will gladly take your money Infidel, so long as you do it within their selected enclaves. Go to other countries and it worse. You'll even see hostility towards fellow Muslims who don't happen to be from the host country.

But not all Muslims are violent: True, but I submit that most either actively support extreme groups or allow the support to go on without reporting this behavior to the proper authorities. If you stripped away religion and made them part of an outlaw motorcycle club or gang you could probably make a good case for RICO charges against certain Muslim organizations in the US alone.  This organized support structure, which exists in many countries, prospers in part because it is supported passively or actively by it's followers. It is a decentralized worldwide network that is allowed to hide behind religion and no one wants to make this a religious war, right?

Why we are at war with Islam: The West doesn't want to admit it. It cloaks it's arguments with "democracy" and "freedom" and while that may well be the goal of the West (one I have no issues with), the "OPFOR" see it in a different light. As before, politics clothed in religion or not, it doesn't matter. Our opponents use religion as the justification for their actions. The West has been very adamant that this isn't about religion and indeed Western governments don't seek to convert the Followers of the Prophet, but if we took religion out of the equation do you think we'd still cling to the democracy angle? I don't think so because we could brand this (fill in the blank) organization as our enemy and then hunt them down the world over, but the West sees itself as tolerant towards other people and vigorously side-steps the religious aspects of the war. 

So there's my contribution on half a cup of coffee.


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> But at least we haven't degraded into name-calling. Yet.


 
See below.



Freefalling said:


> Why we are at war with Islam: *The West** doesn't want to admit it.*


 
Mara, don't look now but Free just called you "Batman" (Adam West).  ;)


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2012)

I found this funny as hell.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I guess I'm confused, I thought this thread was to discuss whether Islam is a religion of peace, not a compare and contrast between it and Christianity.


Apologies, I was just using examples of similar issues Christians face to make it easier to relate. I have no problem removing the compare/contrast from future posts. Thanks for the heads up.

Also, I will try to reply to your other post later tonight after class.


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2012)

In all seriousness, this thread, as I understand it, is not a comparative analysis of the Qur'an but rather discussing whether or not Islam is in fact a religion of peace. To that end, I would recommend defining "peace". To me peace is synonymous with non-violence, tolerance, acceptance, etc as epitomized in the Buddist philosophy.

Additionally the Qur'an, to my knowledge, has never killed anyone or inflicted violence upon others whereas the followers of Islam clearly have. (Side note: I went into a "Qur'an shop" (a kitab) in a Muslim country to purchase a Qur'an and holder.  I meant no harm however I was quickly asked to leave because I was clearly a gringo.  I'm sure had I stayed, I would have been injured by a thrown holy book. :-" )  Therefore quoting the Qur'an to justify a position is actually flawed because the book is nothing more than Arabic words that are interpreted by people in different ways hence Sufism, Shiaism, Whabbism, etc.

I believe that in order to clearly state the premise of this thread, it be renamed "Are the followers of Islam more apt to incite violence in the name of Allah?" but even then that title presupposes that Muslims are violent.

Thoughts?


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2012)

QC said:


> Fuck me it IPhone sucks at the cut and paste shit. Mara please tidy if you will. With the above I had a wry smile to myself as a minority can be acused of hijacking a religion so too did Paul hijack another.
> There's some icky stuff in Leveticus but were wise enough to have taken it today with a grain of salt. The islamists still ( or some of them) still want to live the old way.
> With regard to OBL he didn't have the stature to issue fatwas and this point has since been clarified by Islamic scolars through the an Declaration.
> SURAH V:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends to one another. He among you who taketh them for friends is ( one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
> There is too the Sword verses SURAH IX 1-8. the only ones in the koran which do not begin with " in the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful." It makes interesting reading.


 
Here is an interesting paper that goes deeper into the surahs that QC ref'd and well as Islamic Rulings on Warfare.  The paper cites the Qur'an but goes deeper into how the radicals justify violence in the name of Allah.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub588.pdf


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

lindy said:


> I believe that in order to clearly state the premise of this thread, it be renamed "Are the followers of Islam more apt to incite violence in the name of Allah?" but even then that title presupposes that Muslims are violent.
> Thoughts?


 
If this is the case than I will run out of rebuttals fairly quick . I could try really hard, but it would require comparing followers of other religions, & to be honest, I'm not sure how far I could take that logically. If that's what the powers that be want, I will try to finaggle some arguments.


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> If this is the case than I will run out of rebuttals fairly quick . I could try really hard, but it would require comparing followers of other religions, & to be honest, I'm not sure how far I could take that logically. If that's what the powers that be want, I will try to finaggle some arguments.


 
I would also argue that in order to really understand the actions of radical Muslims, one should look at the source of beliefs that are "modified" (twisted, manipulated, etc) to convince others to act violently OR to exercise tolerance and the only way to do that is to understand (interpret) the Qur'an: an extremely difficult task.

Is the activity depicted in this photo haraam or not?  In order to argue a position, the rules of Islamic prayer must be understood and the source of that understanding is the Qur'an (or from a mufti, imam, or Abu Azzam).


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 13, 2012)

Problem with the Qur'an it has contradictions in it, interpretation can go in several directions,  among other issues.  

Christianity changed from within.    I would remind people to look at Martin Luther's 95 These.     So can militant Islam change from within?   In some ways, Islam is a militant religion.  

It is also not written for women,  see Sura Al Nesa.    Look at the Hadiths, the life and times of Mohammad, which are used to help clerics to understand the Qur'an.    Among other issues, while the Qur'an may be the first book written in Arabic, there are linguistic errors. Those tend to say, it was originally written in Syriac and among other sins of Mohammad, he plagiarized, or the person who actually wrote the Qur'an did.  

Interpretation is probably the biggest issue.   The Qur'an is considered a reader.   One can recite it, but one can not read it.   Reading it, implies interpreting what one is reading.   The Interpretations is like Papal infallibility.    It can not be questioned,  so the way it is interpret, is the way it is.    There are also a movement to re-interpret the Qur'an and Hadiths... along with Barkari (sp?)

Islam is up to interpretation and where it goes is up to the Muslims.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

HOLLiS said:


> Interpretation is probably the biggest issue. The Qur'an is considered a reader. One can recite it, but one can not read it. Reading it, implies interpreting what one is reading. The Interpretations is like Papal infallibility. It can not be questioned, so the way it is interpret, is the way it is. There are also a movement to re-interpret the Qur'an and Hadiths... along with Barkari (sp?)
> 
> Islam is up to interpretation and where it goes is up to the Muslims.


 
I think that's an excellent point that I had not really considered until you mentioned it. Thanks for that.


----------



## Headshot (Jan 13, 2012)

Religion is the enemy of faith, which should be the basis for belief.  Any "religion" that promotes teaching children to hack off the heads of people has no place being referred to as a "religion of peace".


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Okay, to tie in my premise that we are war with Islam and that Islam is not a religion of peace.
> 
> Fundamentally, Islam has not evolved or changed. It began through violence, was maintained with violence, and that pattern continues to this day. There was even a split after Muhammad's death and that split continues to enjoy untold amounts of violence to this day. The religion has no issues with solving internal disputes with violence, so why should an external issue be any different? Islam's growth has always coincided with violence and is only stopped through violence, political discussions or concessions have no room in this area as far as Islamic leaders are concerned.
> _If you have time or the inclination, can you flesh this out a little further with specific examples? I have a response for the split after Muhammad's death that I will give after class today, but particularly for the part about beginning & maintenance through violence so I can address them directly? Beginning & maintenance cover a large swath of time & would prove extremely difficult to find enough time to write about. Thanks for these challenging arguments. You guys are really making me work here. I wish I was getting college credit for this. _
> ...


----------



## AWP (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> If you have time or the inclination, can you flesh this out a little further with specific examples? I have a response for the split after Muhammad's death that I will give after class today, but particularly for the part about beginning & maintenance through violence so I can address them directly? Beginning & maintenance cover a large swath of time & would prove extremely difficult to find enough time to write about. Thanks for these challenging arguments. You guys are really making me work here. I wish I was getting college credit for this.


 
Um, okay.

The Profit...err, Prophet and his people were harrassed by the residents of Mecca. They went to Medina and eventually laid siege to Mecca, but not before several battles, numeorus raid, at least one ordered assassination, and the conquest or subjugation of several tribes opposing The Profit. Mecca finally fell in 630....after 8 years of fighting.

Then you have a series of battles/ wars from 634-750 which include the conquests of Iraq, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Cyprus, Hispania, and Georgia.

As to the maintenance of the religion, you have the civil wars associated with the Sunni/ Shi'a split, the Abbasid's and Umayyad's. You have the Qarmatians and Seljuk Turks, and there's the AFghan expedition into Nuristan around 1896 with the sole purpose being "convert or die." I consider civil wars to be maintenance because one side is fighting an internal threat to maintain the status quo.

While many nations see similar cycles of violence, they are rare and they aren't an accepted part of life. The Sunni/ Shi'a split prevents this and they are still fighting over it to this day. It isn't as noticeable as it was during the caliphates thanks to modern national borders, but it is still there and reasonably frequent...or day-to-day as we see in Iraq.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 13, 2012)

lindy said:


> See below.
> 
> 
> 
> Mara, don't look now but Free just called you "Batman" (Adam West). ;)


 
lol

I assure you, he has called me far worse.  A couple of times (in Afghanistan) he has even done it in person ;)


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Um, okay.
> 
> The Profit...err, Prophet and his people were harrassed by the residents of Mecca. They went to Medina and eventually *laid siege* to Mecca, but not before several *battles, numeorus raid*, at least one *ordered assassination*, and the *conquest or subjugation* of several tribes opposing The Profit. *Mecca finally fell* in 630....after 8 years of *fighting*.
> 
> Then you have *a series of battles/ wars* from 634-750 which include the *conquests* of Iraq, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Cyprus, Hispania, and Georgia.


 
Peace be upon them.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Um, okay.


 
Thanks. I will gather some notes to prepare a response that I will post later this evening or tomorrow.


----------



## QC (Jan 13, 2012)

lindy said:


> Here is an interesting paper that goes deeper into the surahs that QC ref'd and well as Islamic Rulings on Warfare.  The paper cites the Qur'an but goes deeper into how the radicals justify violence in the name of Allah.
> 
> http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub588.pdf


That's an interesting read. The question has been posed in the past,"how do you defeat and idea?" My answer is you do it with a better idea.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 13, 2012)

Muslims also justifies acts of peace.  

http://allafrica.com/stories/201201090750.html

From the article:



> The leader of the group, Gimba kakanda, who spoke to Daily Trust, said, "We are protecting our fellow Christian brothers and sisters to show the world that our leaders cannot use religion to divide us. We want to send a signal by coming here to protect our fellow Christians that we are one and we can stand to protect one another".


 
It is all about interpretation and who is doing the interpretation.   A good person will use the Qur'an to support good acts, or a bad person will use the Qur'an to support bad acts.  

The good Muslims do need our support.   Isolating them will probably push them over to the dark side.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> The Profit...err, Prophet and his people were harrassed by the residents of Mecca.
> _harassment is rather mild term for what happened to Muhammad’s first followers, isn’t it? The Meccans were worried about how Muhammad’s message threatened their "capitalistic profits" (for lack of a better word). _
> _Abu Jahl issued a order to boycott Muslims. Meccans were not allowed to trade or marry Muslims. The result was 2 years of financial ruin, starvation & scrounging for food. Slaves that converted to Islam were tortured & left to out naked in the sun until they died. _
> _Things got worse when Muhammad’s protector, Abu Talib died, leaving Muhammad to be killed for an or no reason according to the customs of the times. This is when he went to Yathrib as I posted about earlier. The result was something unprecedented in the Arab world: tribes entered into an agreement not to fight each other. Also, people of other faiths were free to worship their way. _
> ...


----------



## QC (Jan 13, 2012)

Thanks for the clarity in #57. I've said it here before some time ago that there is the Islam of prayer, reflection and pilgrimage, no issue. Then there is the militant variety which is the one the world has been involved with one way or another for a decade or so? Is Islam a religion of peace, yes. Is it violent? Yes. The irony is the tiny minority of Salafists who make it so.


----------



## pardus (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> Thanks. I will gather some notes to prepare a response that I will post later this evening or tomorrow.


 

You are doing all this as an intellectual exercise, or...?


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

pardus said:


> You are doing all this as an intellectual exercise, or...?


I am not sure what the ...? is referring to, but rest assured, this is an intellectual exercise. As I posted earlier, I realize I am only 25 & can only know so much at this stage. I am playing the advocate because if I was taught something incorrectly, or have misunderstood what I read, it is my most sincere hope that the wiser heads on SS correct me.

If you are implying I'm trying to advocate or push an agenda, I can assure that's not the case. If it was, I would have entered into a debate with people of similar age & lesser experience than myself. I was simply referring to my notes that are currently lost in my office. I have only been actively studying this topic for a short time, so I need to refer to my notes from time to time, particularly in cases post-rashidun. I currently am undecided where I stand on this issue, which is why I am so thankful for the opportunity to engage in this debate. I too have strong reservations on Islam because of what I saw and experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan, & I am trying, to the best of my ability, to come to my own conclusions based on intelligent discussion & input from others.


----------



## pardus (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I am not sure what the ...? is referring to, but rest assured, this is an intellectual exercise. As I posted earlier, I realize I am only 25 & can only know so much at this stage. I am playing the advocate because if I was taught something incorrectly, or have misunderstood what I read, it is my most sincere hope that the wiser heads on SS correct me.
> 
> If you are implying I'm trying to advocate or push an agenda, I can assure that's not the case. If it was, I would have entered into a debate with people of similar age & lesser experience than myself. I was simply referring to my notes that are currently lost in my office. I have only been actively studying this topic for a short time, so I need to refer to my notes from time to time, particularly in cases post-rashidun. I currently am undecided where I stand on this issue, which is why I am so thankful for the opportunity to engage in this debate. I too have strong reservations on Islam because of what I saw and experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan, & I am trying, to the best of my ability, to come to my own conclusions based on intelligent discussion & input from others.


 
OK, no problem, just clarifying what I thought.

I will give you one kernel of advice though, 'books' are great but they are no substitute for reality. University/school is 'books'.

I love to debate (as most here who know me will attest too.) but I realize (most of the time) what is real and true.

To say Islam is a religion of peace is supremely ignorant and idiotic. Even a cursory look with any intelligence and slight digging will reveal that.

That said, go nuts and debate, it is healthy and needed in a free society, something Islam doesn't allow.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I am not sure what the ...? is referring to, but rest assured, this is an intellectual exercise. As I posted earlier, I realize I am only 25 & can only know so much at this stage. I am playing the advocate because if I was taught something incorrectly, or have misunderstood what I read, it is my most sincere hope that the wiser heads on SS correct me.
> 
> If you are implying I'm trying to advocate or push an agenda, I can assure that's not the case. If it was, I would have entered into a debate with people of similar age & lesser experience than myself. I was simply referring to my notes that are currently lost in my office. I have only been actively studying this topic for a short time, so I need to refer to my notes from time to time, particularly in cases post-rashidun. I currently am undecided where I stand on this issue, which is why I am so thankful for the opportunity to engage in this debate. I too have strong reservations on Islam because of what I saw and experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan, & I am trying, to the best of my ability, to come to my own conclusions based on intelligent discussion & input from others.


 
I intended this as an intellectual exercise and I recognize that you're approaching it from the same angle.  I appreciate you taking the "other" point of view, I think it makes all of us better.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

pardus said:


> OK, no problem, just clarifying what I thought.
> 
> I will give you one kernel of advice though, 'books' are great but they are no substitute for reality. University/school is 'books'.
> 
> ...


 
I am not as confident in my education or experience as you to make such a definitive statement, but then again, I am young, & do not think I have the right to make such statements with only 3 deployments & only a year of studying Islam. Maybe with more years & more experience, I will come the same conclusion. & yes, I understand books is no substitute for experience or reality, but I also feel those books, when used as honestly as possible, shed more light on that reality than it would without them. Just in the time this thread has been up, I have had what I was taught challenged, which is exactly what I wanted, b/c I have no interest in holding to a way of thought that is neither correct nor reasonable.


----------



## pardus (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I am not as confident in my education or experience as you to make such a definitive statement, but then again, I am young, & do not think I have the right to make such statements with only 3 deployments & only a year of studying Islam. Maybe with more years & more experience, I will come the same conclusion. & yes, I understand books is no substitute for experience or reality, but I also feel those books, when used as honestly as possible, shed more light on that reality than it would without them. Just in the time this thread has been up, I have had what I was taught challenged, which is exactly what I wanted, b/c I have no interest in holding to a way of thought that is neither correct nor reasonable.


 
Go to a strict Islamic country, stay there for just a couple of weeks and you will learn all you need to know about the reality of Islam, then go back to the books and educate yourself on what you have seen.

I work my whole life on one philosophy, "what's the bottom line?" That cuts out meaningless bullshit, and in regards to Islam shows quite clearly that it is a violent and repressive religion. Something I shouldn't need to tell you.

Stop being such a bookworm nerd, look at the hard facts, your definitive answer is about 15 minutes away.

Later entries to the Koran take precedence to earlier (more tolerant ones). So as a result we have undisputed violence base religion, right?

I'm not trying to attack you, just slap you a bit ;)

Don't be afraid of telling me im full of shit because im a moderator, that isn't relevant here, ok?


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

pardus said:


> To say Islam is a religion of peace is supremely ignorant and idiotic. Even a cursory look with any intelligence and slight digging will reveal that.


 
One more thing, & I say this with no offense meant & the utmost respect- casually casting off those who do believe Islam is a religion of peace as ignorant & idiotic, without providing more concrete examples, does not further the debate. I would not take an issue with this were it not for some whom I greatly respect- whose experience & knowledge I would venture to say compare with most, if not all, on this forum- actually DO believe, on some level, the very thing you consider idiotic. When well respected men (like those on this board) make these statements, regardless of which position they are on, it blunts the intellectual progress of those whom look up to these men. Please understand, this is a big issue for me because based on my current trajectory, my career will be focused on the Middle East, whether in the scholarly arena or in the government, & I do not want to be under any false pretenses by the time I get to wherever I am heading. That way, when (God willing) I am in a position to pass on these ideas & influence others, I am not simply regurgitating the flavor of the month.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 13, 2012)

Pardus,  IMHO, religion is a tool.   Someone earlier stated something about the difference of faith and religion.   There is a lot of discussion about organized religion in the states.   So is it the religion or is the religion being used as a tool of oppression?    Historically when a country was under a theocracy, the people where greatly repressed.  As the theocracy changed to a dictatorship or monarch, religion was used to establish the right to rule over the people. 

Marx stated, that religion was the opiate of the people.   

As I mentioned the Qur'an is pretty easy to make the interpretation that you want out of it.    In those Islamic countries, clerics are like feudal lords, with control over their people of life and death.   The other aspect, literacy in those countries is a very low %.    Same was in feudal Europe, most people were illiterate. 

I don't think the issue with Islam is a black and white clear cut issue.   Liberation theology is pretty new to Islam and has not made much in the way of support.  Progressive Islamic writers fall with in the group considered to be apostates and are subject to execution.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

pardus said:


> Stop being such a bookworm nerd, look at the hard facts, your definitive answer is about 15 minutes away.
> _I'll be honest I don't quite agree with this. It can be extremely dangerous to make a decision based on my individual first impression. Christopher Columbus operated under a similar mentality, & it royally sucked for the Native Americans. _
> Later entries to the Koran take precedence to earlier (more tolerant ones). So as a result we have undisputed violence base religion, right?
> _This is an excellent point. Yes, if we work from this viewpoint, I agree I have little to no ground to stand on. In recent history, I think it can be agreed that Islamic society is, by and large, oppressive. So we have reached an agreement. _
> ...


----------



## pardus (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> One more thing, & I say this with no offense meant & the utmost respect- casually casting off those who do believe Islam is a religion of peace as ignorant & idiotic, without providing more concrete examples, does not further the debate. I would not take an issue with this were it not for some whom I greatly respect- whose experience & knowledge I would venture to say compare with most, if not all, on this forum- actually DO believe, on some level, the very thing you consider idiotic. When well respected men (like those on this board) make these statements, regardless of which position they are on, it blunts the intellectual progress of those whom look up to these men. Please understand, this is a big issue for me because based on my current trajectory, my career will be focused on the Middle East, whether in the scholarly arena or in the government, & I do not want to be under any false pretenses by the time I get to wherever I am heading. That way, when (God willing) I am in a position to pass on these ideas & influence others, I am not simply regurgitating the flavor of the month.


 
You're a fucking politician, I'll give you that! lol


Why should I need to prove a fact that proves itself? Read and you will see I'm correct.
I will not expend effort to prove the fact that Islam is evil and violent. Do you think fucking pre teen age girls is righteous? No? Then I'm right. Simple as that, end of story, lets have a beer.

Stop trying to justify Islam and look at it objectively.
I don't need to find passages and "proof" of the violence of Islam, I'm stating a fact. You should know what i'm saying is right because you should have read and understood enough about Islam to know I'm right.

Also, I don't give a shit who thinks I'm wrong. This is a subject I've looked into and made a decision based on facts. If I'm the only person on the planet who thinks this way I'm OK with it. I follow what I think is right, not what others follow.


----------



## pardus (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> Later entries to the Koran take precedence to earlier (more tolerant ones). So as a result we have undisputed violence base religion, right?
> _This is an excellent point. Yes, if we work from this viewpoint, I agree I have little to no ground to stand on._


 

If we work from this viewpoint??? That is dictated by the Islamic documents correct?

This is why I ask if you are truly using this as an intellectual argument or have an agenda. I stated an absolute fact and you try to marginalize that as a viewpoint.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

pardus said:


> You're a fucking politician, I'll give you that! lol
> _Probably the biggest insult I have ever been dealt_
> Stop trying to justify Islam and look at it objectively.
> _Believe me, my feelings won't be hurt if you are right. Likewise, if I come to the conclusion you are wrong, then fine. Neither conclusion will change me except for adding another conclusion I worked hard to get to._
> ...


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

pardus said:


> If we work from this viewpoint??? That is dictated by the Islamic documents correct?
> 
> This is why I ask if you are truly using this as an intellectual argument or have an agenda. I stated an absolute fact and you try to marginalize that as a viewpoint.


Perhaps I worded it poorly. you'll have to forgive me, I'm replying in between homework assignments. I was basing my arguments off the historical context of the Quran & arguing from that stand point. The FACT that Islamic civilization today is oppressive & largely violent is without debate. & again, for the last time, no. I have no agenda. I have no agenda. I have no agenda.


----------



## pardus (Jan 13, 2012)

LOL, you're a bastard.



> I don't need to find passages and "proof" of the violence of Islam, I'm stating a fact. You should know what i'm saying is right because you should have read and understood enough about Islam to know I'm right.
> _As compared to what though. I can pick a point in time for essentially every religion out there to provide proof that religion is evil. Perhaps the issue is whether religion is general is to blame. _


 
The Koran was written in chronological order but wasn't put onto paper that way, you need to read it chronologically in order to see the true meaning. i.e. peaceful stuff at the start when he was weak then kill the kaffiirs  when he was strong at the end.

Please tell me you understand that. I'm a little surprised I have to explain this to a "Scholar" of Islam.


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I am not sure what the ...? is referring to.


 
Mental masturbation.  Happens all the time until you get a little older.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

lindy said:


> Mental masturbation. Happens all the time until you get a little older.


Lol thanks for the clarification. Like I said, if I just wanted to stroke my own ego I would have gone somewhere else where it would have been easier. There is no hope of climax to be had here ;)


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I too have strong reservations on Islam because of what I saw and experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan...


 
You have seen nothing but Muslims with their backs against the wall in a perceived fight for their survival.  Take a summer abroad and head out to Uzbekistan or Tajikistan then head over to the Azerbaijan (the closest you can get to Shia Islam without going "hiking").  After some time there cruise over to the Maghreb and chill while you drink the mint tea (amazing).  End your travels with hanging out with the Bedouins and enjoy the food.  THEN you will understand those peaceful people will slit your throat, drain you out, and then pray over your corpse while praising that Allah presented them with the opportunity to kill a kafir to preserve Islam.  WTFever.

Dude, the wipe their freakin' asses with their left hands.  Islam is a religion of piece(s) of poop on their hand.  Um, did I just cross the EO line?


----------



## AWP (Jan 13, 2012)

I vaguely recall a ditty about actions speaking louder than words.

While I won't discount what the Qu'ran/ Koran/ Korean/ Corona says, I'll put more stock in how the believers and followers act.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

lindy said:


> You have seen nothing but Muslims with their backs against the wall in a perceived fight for their survival.


I'm glad you are such an authority on my own experiences that you can effectively interpret them for me


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 13, 2012)

pardus said:


> I'm a little surprised I have to explain this to a "Scholar" of Islam.


 
 Seriously? did you ever read a single post where I touted myself as a scholar, or even in an intermediate stage of proficiency on Islamic studies? No, quite the opposite. You saw someone who, when Mara said he would love to debate someone of an opposing view, took him up on it as an attempt to better understand all opinions involved. I did this while immediately, & repeatedly, cautioning everyone that I new to Islamic studies, do not YET hold a definitive opinion on the matter, & will play the part of someone from the opposing side. 

This thread was very informative. For all those who participated, thank you. I took away valuable insights.
Unfortunately I fear this thread has now run it's course.

Semper.


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> Seriously? did you ever read a single post where I touted myself as a scholar, or even in an intermediate stage of proficiency on Islamic studies? No, quite the opposite. You saw someone who, when Mara said he would love to debate someone of an opposing view, took him up on it as an attempt to better understand all opinions involved. I did this while immediately, & repeatedly, cautioning everyone that I new to Islamic studies, do not YET hold a definitive opinion on the matter, & will play the part of someone from the opposing side.
> 
> This thread was very informative. For all those who participated, thank you. I took away valuable insights.
> Unfortunately I fear this thread has now run it's course.
> ...


 
Sigh...

Did you take note of the "" when I said scholar?

Besides, all your responses are "scholarly" based because you do nothing but quote the Koran to back your views.

Unfortunately I fear you became overwhelmed when your brain was called upon over your "scholarly" training and you didn't have the common sense to overcome your education and think for yourself.

;)


----------



## Crusader74 (Jan 14, 2012)

lindy said:


> In all seriousness, this thread, as I understand it, is not a comparative analysis of the Qur'an but rather discussing whether or not Islam is in fact a religion of peace. To that end, I would recommend defining "peace". To me peace is synonymous with non-violence, tolerance, acceptance, etc as epitomized in the Buddist philosophy.
> 
> Additionally the Qur'an, to my knowledge, has never killed anyone or inflicted violence upon others whereas the followers of Islam clearly have. (Side note: I went into a "Qur'an shop" (a kitab) in a Muslim country to purchase a Qur'an and holder. I meant no harm however I was quickly asked to leave because I was clearly a gringo. I'm sure had I stayed, I would have been injured by a thrown holy book. :-" ) Therefore quoting the Qur'an to justify a position is actually flawed because the book is nothing more than Arabic words that are interpreted by people in different ways hence Sufism, Shiaism, Whabbism, etc.
> 
> ...


 

To add to that, I had a similar experience in Lebanon.. A small shop located outside the A- Company Camp In South Lebanon.. It was owned by two brothers, Ali and Muhammad who's normal very friendly demeanor(Friendly = Sales to Irish Soldiers) suddenly changed when I picked up the Qur'an to inquire about Islam... He exclaimed you must not touch the holy book! What Religion of Peace does not allow another demomination to pick up the book they preech from to inquire/read ?

I left and didn't go back for a few weeks... Back to friendly demeanor...


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 14, 2012)

Well Irish they did used to chain the bible to the church back in the day, course that was probably to keep from people stealing it. 

Sorry to come late to the party, getting set up for my first time to college has been hectic. 

As I'd already pointed out in the previous thread that spawned this one, with the writings in the Koran, the hadith's, and the generally militant history of Islam, one can of course see its not a religion of peace. That's totally against what all the evidence points out to us, not to mention actions speak louder than words. Plenty also depends not only on ones interpretation of religious text, but what they do with it as well. AQ and those that practice a form of suffi/Wahhabi Islam are about the closest practitioners to the "pure" form of Islam. While its not the brand everyone practices, it's closest to the teachings of the religion. However despite the fact that you can't turn back time no matter how badly they want to, given cultural, tribal, ethnical, and sociological considerations, most Muslims don't/can't/won't practice this more "pure" form of Islam, though,many try to come close. 

Islam itself also helps promote and breed xenophobia and xenophobic tensions and traits, which only helps create a more vicious circle, in this case not trusting or wanting to help outsiders even though it might be the morally right thing to do, i.e. knowing there are IED's along the road and not saying shit to a platoon walking down the road. It's not right, I hate it, I hate that "not my problem" attitude and using what religion says you should do as opposed to what you know is right to do. 

It's not a pattern exclusive to Islam, but it's more common and seen more in parts of the world where Islam is practiced. History further helps enforce these negative attitudes and helps to focus negative energy and ideas when it comes to Muslims too, as the jihadi's just love to continually remind people of the crusades, but of course forget to mention some of islam's more militant conquering times in its history. All of this is not to say its exclusive to Islam, as most religions have a rich history of murder, conquering, killing non-believers, and general hypocracy in them, but again, Islam tends to come out stronger in these regards.


----------



## AWP (Jan 14, 2012)

I'm going to reopen this thread, but first, you need to read this:

This thread is supposed to be a debate about a specific topic. Debates can be heated affairs, I well understand that, but I am not going to tolerate what this thread has become.

The name calling and the put downs end NOW. If you lack the discipline or professionalism to state your views/ beliefs without resorting to mud slinging then stay out of this thread. Given the caliber of individuals participating I shouldn't even have to bring this up and that's what pisses me off the most.

If you have questions or problems, send me a PM. If you have a complaint about me, send Boon a PM.

Back to our regulary scheduled program.


----------



## Brill (Jan 14, 2012)

The irony about FF's above post in a thread about peace is hillarious and drives the point home that Islam INCITES VIOLENCE!


----------



## Brill (Jan 14, 2012)

Irish said:


> To add to that, I had a similar experience in Lebanon.. A small shop located outside the A- Company Camp In South Lebanon.. It was owned by two brothers, Ali and Muhammad who's normal very friendly demeanor(Friendly = Sales to Irish Soldiers) suddenly changed when I picked up the Qur'an to inquire about Islam... He exclaimed you must not touch the holy book! What Religion of Peace does not allow another demomination to pick up the book they preech from to inquire/read ?
> 
> I left and didn't go back for a few weeks... Back to friendly demeanor...


 
Sounds very familar.  Oh, but what about the food Irish and the nightlife???  Hubba hubba!!!!  Beirut is the best place in the ME in my opinion.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 14, 2012)

This is a emotional issue.   Looking at Islam seems to contradict reason.  There are less than 1 billion Muslims in the world, each one (number 1) defines their aspect of Islam.   When there are large number who practice barbaric acts on their own people and other people, what does that say.   It also depends on how many other Muslims a person knows.   If all one hears are the barbaric acts, that is what one sees,  Islam is barbaric.  IMHO, that is a natural human thing.   This discussion goes back to the beginning of time.   Religion, Nationalism, race, sex, etc........ any different group than we are may not be fully understood and viewed in simple stereotypical manner.  

There is even a term for a fallacy in logic for this issue, equivocation.   That still does not help the dilemma that we are in.    Some sects of Islam, makes Islam look like a cult.  That does not mean All of Islam is a cult, just those sects.   We also have good old human nature again,  Probably most Muslims are not 100% compliant with Islam.  I think that applies to most religions.   Week end believers, Jacks, etc.  If those societies where not functional theocracies, those people probably would be some other religion or ??.  

The best people to do with the barbarity practices by other Muslims are other Muslims.   As outsiders we can only, restrict, pass laws, condemn, etc  Just as those Muslim youth are protecting those churches, or Muslims who protected Coptics in Egypt, they need to be supported.   I think, our task is to bifurcate the issue.  That is the rub, as Shakespeare would have said. 

This issue also challenges our understanding of our Constitution.  The freedom to think, to believe in what ever one chooses.   People do not need other people's OK to believe in what ever.   I think, this creates a conflict in our own minds too. 

I first read the Qur'an in the mid 60's.  A hobby of mine is theology, even though I am mostly a materialist.   All through that time and especially after 9/11 I have not read or heard of a solution to this issue.    I believe the solution lies in each of us individually.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 14, 2012)

After talking with Pardus via pm, we stumbled on something that might help focus this debate. I'll just copy & paste parts of our convo:

What I am currently trying to figure out is if that barbarism is directly because of Islam or if Islam is simply a supplement to an already violent society. As brutal as early Islam was (Muhammad through the rashidun, even more so afterwards), it was far more "civil" than what they had before Muhammad. For women, children, & the region in general. Islamic civilization quickly began deterioration, & being confronted by western modernism tipped it over them edge.

If I got in a time machine & looked at Christian Europe in the 13th & 14th centuries, we would see similar barbarism, often done in the name of Christianity. Catholicism alone lays claim to a staggering body count. Wars brought out by the reformation is another example. Men/nations of all religions routinely throughout history have twisted their scriptures to justify their own greed. It happened for hundreds of years in Christianity, is this what's happening here?
So is Islam really the source of this evil, or just an easy excuse that can easily be molded to fit a radicals beliefs? I would dare say that the Arab world would be just as violent if Islam had not been invented.
I think I can be argued that by uniting the Arab world, Muhammad did pave the way for vast Muslim nations that have inflicted massive atrocities, as could be said for of Constantine or the rise of the papacy. But some nations were (compared to societies of there time) a great example of creativity & tolerance. 

So, in Pardus' words: "Is Islam the reason of the enabler?"


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 14, 2012)

Mael,  books do not do anything.   It takes people to act.   I tend to believe it is politics first, then culture and Islam is just a tool.   Just as Christianity was tool in the middle ages, to control people.  When you have a large proportion of the people who are illiterate, the religious leaders can make up what ever and say it is a divine ruling.   

We can change political leaders in rather short order, but changing cultural influence takes time, lots of it.  Maybe generations must past before we get effective change.   Look at the History of the US or Europe, we have gone a long ways over the last 200 years.   

Some of the Muslims that I chatted with, will say a lot of the barbarity is carried over from the past, pre-Islam.    Mass conversions to a faith does not change the culture of people as much as those culture tends to change the religion.    We can also see this in the development of Christianity in Europe.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 14, 2012)

HOLLiS said:


> Mael, books do not do anything. It takes people to act. I tend to believe it is politics first, then culture and Islam is just a tool. Just as Christianity was tool in the middle ages, to control people. When you have a large proportion of the people who are illiterate, the religious leaders can make up what ever and say it is a divine ruling.
> _Excellent points._
> a lot of the barbarity is carried over from the past, pre-Islam. Mass conversions to a faith does not change the culture of people as much as those culture tends to change the religion. We can also see this in the development of Christianity in Europe.
> _That's what I'm wondering. A huge portion of early converts could care less about Islam- it was political or benefited their tribe. The barbarity of pre-Islam Arab world rivals the atrocities we see today. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) I read in Maj. Gant's work "It's the Tribes, Stupid" that mentions tribal elders admitting that pashtunwali is held above Islam. There's a lot to be said about how culture vs. religion mold each other_


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2012)

It is a very interesting point indeed.

I think that Islam is probably both a reason and an enabler in the violence we see today (which admittedly is a mere pittance of what is was hundreds of years ago).
I believe one reason why Islam is both is that the wording of the Koran doesn't allow a lot of room for change.

"Kill or Convert" is kinda black and white.

Islam brought about a burst of culture that the whole world benefited from but due to the wording and rules regarding Islam it seems to have locked them into a time capsule that wants to hold them in the middle ages.

The Koran says things such as 'kill or convert' that will forever give certain people the excuse they need to commit violence.
So the Koran can be the reason and the enabler.

More frustratingly, I don't see a chance of things getting better unless Islam is turned on it's head, and that is something I can't imagine.


----------



## Brill (Jan 14, 2012)

If Islam caused and/or enabled violence, then violence would be spread thoughout the Muslim population.

Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Indonesia would all be in flames, no?  There must be some other reason why people from Muslim countries travel to warzones to fight other Muslims and infidels alike.  Conversely, why do Muslims flee to non-Muslim countries when violence erupts in their homeland?


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 14, 2012)

Pardus,  Kill or convert is not black in white, there is wiggle room.   For those who are branded as pagans, it would probably be that way.     One aspect, is that the original Qur'an is gone.    It would not be difficult to alter some of the interpretations.   Some Clerics in Turkey are reviewing the Hadiths, which are used in helping to understand the Qur'an.  

Just like Jihad, can also mean self purification, like a mikva or baptism.   A lot of religions has some kind of cleansing process.   I think what we see in the terrorists action is not really reflected in the Qur'an, but is the terrorist's distortion of what is written.  

Another interesting Sura is 5, ayats 20 -25.  Pretty much says, Israel belongs to the Jews.   We all know how clerics in Islam considered the legitimacy of Israel to be.

Mohammad brought monotheism to the Arabs, who had over 250 gods.   So during the mass conversion, how much of the superstition carried over into the development of Islam in the ME.    Also, read the Sura/Ayats on Arabs, it is not very kind to the Arabs.


----------



## TH15 (Jan 14, 2012)

lindy said:


> If Islam caused and/or enabled violence, then violence would be spread thoughout the Muslim population.
> 
> Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Indonesia would all be in flames, no? There must be some other reason why people from Muslim countries travel to warzones to fight other Muslims and infidels alike. Conversely, why do Muslims flee to non-Muslim countries when violence erupts in their homeland?


Don't those regimes give people free health care/education/etc. to quell the potential for violence? I've spoken with a few Muslims who have said that, at least in the case of the Saudis and Jordanians, the people want to practice Islam as it was to be intended: with Sharia in place and all that comes with that. I don't know enough about the subject matter to offer any contribution, but I wonder (assuming those particular Muslims are correct) how things would be if those regimes weren't intact.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 14, 2012)

I'm confused where anyone would think that Islam is a religion of peace.  The word islam in arabic is from measure four and is closer to submission under god.  Common phrase among radicals is "islam tslam" which means something like "submit or be submitted"


----------



## QC (Jan 14, 2012)

Great points all, and more than I can feasably answer in turn as they're all relevant. 
So:
1. Apostacy, a Muslim may leave but on pain of death.
2.Kafir supressed. This is bourne out with conversations with Egyptian Copts, Iraqi Mandains (sic.), Catholics & Assyrians. 
3. Sex with unbelievers, slaves & captives ok
4. Submit to the will of Allah. Targets down patch out
But for me the final word goes to a young cleric, Rifa al-Tatawi  who travelled to France in 1826 as part of a fact finding delegation. He was confident in his faith and culture but to his amazement he found European astronomers proved the earth was round.


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2012)

lindy said:


> If Islam caused and/or enabled violence, then violence would be spread thoughout the Muslim population.
> 
> Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Indonesia would all be in flames, no? There must be some other reason why people from Muslim countries travel to warzones to fight other Muslims and infidels alike. Conversely, why do Muslims flee to non-Muslim countries when violence erupts in their homeland?


 
No, I think despite what the Koran tells Muslims, that it's only a small minority of Muslims who follow up on the violent commands.
What we have now is a political aspect where people use the violent passages in the Koran to get people to do their bidding in the name of Jihad.
I have no doubt at all that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live peacefully and get along with their lives but I also think most Muslims would be happy to see Israel destroyed.



HOLLiS said:


> Pardus, Kill or convert is not black in white, there is wiggle room. For those who are branded as pagans, it would probably be that way. One aspect, is that the original Qur'an is gone. It would not be difficult to alter some of the interpretations. Some Clerics in Turkey are reviewing the Hadiths, which are used in helping to understand the Qur'an.
> 
> Just like Jihad, can also mean self purification, like a mikva or baptism. A lot of religions has some kind of cleansing process. I think what we see in the terrorists action is not really reflected in the Qur'an, but is the terrorist's distortion of what is written.
> 
> ...


 
True, "People of the Book" can live in subjugation IIRC.

I sincerely hope there evolves a moderate Islam, because if it doesn't then the world is doomed to a never ending war/round of wars.


----------



## Crusader74 (Jan 14, 2012)

lindy said:


> Sounds very familar.  Oh, but what about the food Irish and the nightlife???  Hubba hubba!!!!  Beirut is the best place in the ME in my opinion.


When I was there it was blown to bits and you wouldn't travel on your own for fear of kidnap by the hezbulloh.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 14, 2012)

pardus said:


> It is a very interesting point indeed.
> "Kill or Convert" is kinda black and white.
> _Very true._
> Islam brought about a burst of culture that the whole world benefited from but due to the wording and rules regarding Islam it seems to have locked them into a time capsule that wants to hold them in the middle ages.
> ...


_Unfortunately, this is all too true._


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 14, 2012)

Here are some interesting charts to consider as well:
This is a chart of terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from 1980-2005, compiled from statistics from the FBI terror report. 
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05


I read a Pew poll today that is pretty disturbing: 
http://www.pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-extremism-common-concern-for-muslim-and-western-publics/
It mentions a decline in terrorist support in the Middle East, but the numbers are still high enough to bother the hell out of me:


----------



## QC (Jan 15, 2012)

With Pardus posting vids elsewhere on Islam, I thought this would be a good addition as it's in the same vein. 

http://www.ibri.org/Books/1992-NNewman-Quran/1992-NNewman-Quran.pdf


----------



## pardus (Jan 15, 2012)

Anyone read Churchill's take on Islam?


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 15, 2012)

Indeed I have:
“Civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed.”- Churchill​ 
Compare with a description of Arabs by a 4th century historian called Ammianus Marcellinus:
"The inhabitants of all the districts are savage & warlike, & take such pleasure in war & conflict, that one who loses his life in battle is regarded as happy beyond all others. For those who depart from this life by a natural death they assail with insults, as degenerate & cowardly... we never found (them) desirable as friends or enemies."​​


----------



## pardus (Jan 15, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> Indeed I have:
> 
> “Civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed.”- Churchill​
> Compare with a description of Arabs by a 4th century historian called Ammianus Marcellinus:
> "The inhabitants of all the districts are savage & warlike, & take such pleasure in war & conflict, that one who loses his life in battle is regarded as happy beyond all others. For those who depart from this life by a natural death they assail with insults, as degenerate & cowardly... we never found (them) desirable as friends or enemies."​​


 
Doesn't seem like much has changed with the Jihadists...


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 16, 2012)

No, not much seems to have changed at all. The convo in the other thread about Pressfield's books brought up a good point as well. Compare todays jihadists with what we read in Pressfield's "Afghan Campaign." A lot of his descriptions about the people, their tactics, etc felt eerily similar to what we see today, & that was centuries before Muhammad came on the scene.


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2012)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> No, not much seems to have changed at all. The convo in the other thread about Pressfield's books brought up a good point as well. Compare todays jihadists with what we read in Pressfield's "Afghan Campaign." A lot of his descriptions about the people, their tactics, etc felt eerily similar to what we see today, & that was centuries before Muhammad came on the scene.


 
I thought that too.
Pressfield seems pretty good at doing his research but his portrayal of the Aghans a result of his historical research or was he influenced by Islam?


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 16, 2012)

Interesting point. Here's an interviews he had about why he wrote the book:
http://www.stevenpressfield.com/the-afghan-campaign/#book-top

Here's some vlogs he has. I know he was heavily influenced by Maj. Gant's "It's the Tribes, Stupid." 
http://www.stevenpressfield.com/vblog/


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 17, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I'm going to reopen this thread, but first, you need to read this:
> 
> This thread is supposed to be a debate about a specific topic. Debates can be heated affairs, I well understand that, but I am not going to tolerate what this thread has become.
> 
> ...


 
I've been a little distracted by school lately and haven't been keeping up with this thread like I've meant to. Whatever happened in this thread, it was cleaned up and sorted before I got a look at it. But judging from the PMs I've received and the posting by Freefalling, there have been some shenanigans. That's disappointing. I was hoping that our little group was mature enough to have a rational discussion without it getting out of hand, it looks like I was naive.

I'm not a fan of Islam, but I didn't create this thread to bash the religion. I created it so we could rationally discuss what is perhaps one of the most important topics of our day, and certainly a topic that is relevant to those of us in the military. My intent in these types of threads is always to present accurate and complete information so individuals on the site can make up (or change) their minds based on the best available data. When things become personal or overly emotional, we lose the ability to do that.

These types of threads are also useful for exposing holes in your own arguments. For example, if you use "give me one example..." as part of your argument, someone is likely going to be able to give that one example. If you're basing your defense of Islam on attacking Christianity, how do you react if your opponent agrees with you, or refuses to engage on that topic? Threads like these are also good because they arm you with the ammunition of the "other side" of the argument, which allows you to develop counterarguments for the future. So, these threads are good because they have both educational and reinforcing attributes. They also help to alleviate biases and to clear up common misperceptions.

Think about some common misperceptions that we've cleared up on the site: how many of you think that you can't use a .50 cal against troops? Or say "roadmarch" when you mean "footmarch?" Or think that "irregardless" or "orientate" aren't real words? Pretty simple stuff right- so why do so many people keep getting it wrong? *Because they've heard it so often over the years, they believe it is true without ever questioning it or thinking to check on it themselves.* If we can't get little things like that right, how many of us truly think we know all about a religion that most of us don't even practice? If you dislike Islam, fine, but understand and be able to articulate the "why." Same thing if you like or are neutral to Islam. Do you have enough information and/or experience to make an informed judgment, or are you simply believing what you've heard or been told to think, with no critical thinking on your own part?

One last thought: ad hominem attacks are the tools of the uninformed and the intellectually lazy. There are plenty of other SOF sites out there where we could go if we want to engage in that kind of behavior, we have higher expectations here. I don't know what happened here or who was involved, nor do I really care. The fact that it happened on this site at all, especially after repeated admonitions from the staff, is the issue. Very, very disappointing.

I'm glad to see that whatever happened here is over, and I hope this thread stays on track. I'd like to have more of these types of discussions in the future, but I'm not sure if we're ready for them yet.


----------



## Brill (Jan 17, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> all of that


 
So what I'm hearing you say is that Islam is *NOT* a religion of peace? :-/


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 17, 2012)

lindy said:


> So what I'm hearing you say is that Islam is *NOT* a religion of peace? :-/


 
lol

I DEFINITELY have clipart for that one, brother.  Stand by...


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 17, 2012)

lindy said:


> So what I'm hearing you say is that Islam is *NOT* a religion of peace? :-/


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 17, 2012)

When you look at some members of any religion who are non-peaceful, then I guess it would be safe to say, there is no such thing as a religion of peace.

The fallacy is equivocation.


----------



## QC (Jan 17, 2012)

HOLLiS said:


> When you look at some members of any religion who are non-peaceful, then I guess it would be safe to say, there is no such thing as a religion of peace.
> 
> The fallacy is equivocation.


 Taoism is pretty harmless. Buddhism too, not to many Tao/Buddhist terror cells around.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 17, 2012)

QC said:


> Taoism is pretty harmless. Buddhism too, not to many Tao/Buddhist terror cells around.


 
Yes and no.  In India the Buddhists and Hindus would have it.   Islam is what ever the Muslims member make it to be.  Not all are terrorists and probably like many other religions most are not all that knowledgeable about their religion.


----------



## QC (Jan 17, 2012)

Yes, there are extremist Hindus, the Thuggi, who worship Kali. Hence the term "thug" but I'm pretty sure they're not around anymore. Also the hardline Hindus let loose and do some pretty radical things now and then. As for buddhists, a pretty peaceful lot.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 17, 2012)

IMHO, it is up to the Islamic community to demonstrate those Muslim who use terrorism does not follow the Qur'an or Islam.  There are some that are finally doing that, or the media is finally presenting them to us as news.   In the mid 70's I was reading a Islamic Scholar write on progressive Islam.  Pretty progressive stuff.  Unfortunately I have forgotten his name and do not know if he survived his fellow Muslims disagreements. 

There are inconsistencies in Buddhism too.   Probably within any religion there are core believers, I would guess the percentage is not great.    With illiteracy being very high in the ME and cleric enjoying a status close to being a feudal lord,  the clerics can make Islam what ever they want it to be.   Also look at NOI, Nation of Islam.  They did some good things and some bad things.  

Again, I would fall back to want another member said about faith and religion.


----------



## QC (Jan 17, 2012)

It's a valid point regarding what ME countries say. Saudi for example state publically that they've moderated their stance but unfortunately they haven't and Wahabbism still is a big part of their School curriculum, with all the bells and whistles of conservative Islam. 
I would be curious to find that guy writing on progressive Islam.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 19, 2012)

QC said:


> It's a valid point regarding what ME countries say. Saudi for example state publically that they've moderated their stance but unfortunately they haven't and Wahabbism still is a big part of their School curriculum, with all the bells and whistles of conservative Islam.
> I would be curious to find that guy writing on progressive Islam.


 

No such thing as a progressive Muslim.  The point of how Islam is deemed better than the other children of the book is that the Quran has not been perverted by man as the Bible has. 

Where does the saying "Religion of Peace" come from?  There is only peace in submission.  It's in the words.  Islam comes from salim (submit).  People confuse salaam with islam. Same root, two different meanings.

The biggest problem we have are with the Muslims practicing Salifism.  Comes from salafa (to bring back), as in bring back to the days of their messenger. 

The only thing that my degree in Arabic language and Middle Eastern Culture has taught me is that there are tons of good Muslims, but they aren't extremely devout Muslims.


----------



## QC (Jan 19, 2012)

Perverted by man! Several passages or surahs were destroyed in the collection of the current and definitive work. Also it's what his posse could remember him saying. I don't think, as is claimed, it's the direct word of God.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 19, 2012)

Florida, there are progressive Muslims but as you pointed out and may I add, in context to the many Muslims as you pointed out,  Disagreement means:

1) the person is not devout
2) the person is a apostate
3) the person is perverting the Holy Qur'an

No different then the days of Papal Infallibility.  

The word Muslim, means submission.   Avroham is referred as a Muslim in the 2nd Sura.   Isn't that what most religions ask for is submission of he member to the ______________.  

The old way is greatly protected from change.   Then that is not unusual with people.   It is just a matter of degree and how it is done.  Islam is not the cause of intolerance.  It is just good at protecting it.


----------

