Is Islam a peaceful or violent religion?

[Son_of_Niall]

With regards to right-wingers and left-wingers, it has been my experience that right-wingers, even those on the far right, are far more likely to use evidence and sound reasoning to present their case than left-wingers. Left-wingers tend to use group-think, identity politics, ad hominem arguments (such as the one you used), abusive epithets and ambiguous wording to silence or derail all discussion.

Now you can either reinforce that observation or begin to disabuse me of it, depending upon how you respond to this post.

Weapons. of. mass. destruction.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Weapons. of. mass. destruction.

This means what, precisely?

Both the right and the left accepted and endorsed going into Iraq. Clinton, in fact, voted for the war and accepted the WMD claim from the “intelligence” community.

Your point?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I am not a right winger in fact I lean towards more liberal than conservative but I noticed that liberals are more likely to rely on emotional arguments than rational arguments.

Yeah, silly liberals. Getting all emotional about a million dead Iraqis, dead Libyans, innocent people killed in drone strikes.
We need to be more rational like Trump…

 

[Peter_Plato]

The last two World Wars were between people who adhered to Christianity. As were the Napoleonic wars, the various wars England fought (too numerous to count) as well as America between Mexico, Native Americans…I could go on for an hour.
The point being, Christian nations are just if not more violent.

Were those “Christian” nations attempting to force their “Christianity” on other “Christian” nations?

No.

Were Islamic entities engaging in jihad attempting to impose Islam on non-Islamic countries?

I suppose you could make the case that constitutional democracies are attempting to “impose” or defend free speech and freedom in the face of jihadist terrorism when they fight terrorism, if you want to argue that.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Were those “Christian” nations attempting to force their “Christianity” on other “Christian” nations?

No.

Were Islamic entities engaging in jihad attempting to impose Islam on non-Islamic countries?

I suppose you could make the case that constitutional democracies are attempting to “impose” or defend free speech and freedom in the face of jihadist terrorism when they fight terrorism, if you want to argue that.

The question in the OP is "Is Islam (a religion) a peaceful or violent religion?
The answer has been proven, no more than Christianity.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

This means what, precisely?

Both the right and the left accepted and endorsed going into Iraq. Clinton, in fact, voted for the war and accepted the WMD claim from the “intelligence” community.

Your point?

Try to pay attention.
You said:

Originally Posted by Peter Plato

With regards to right-wingers and left-wingers, it has been my experience that right-wingers, even those on the far right, **are far more likely to use evidence and sound reasoning to present their case **than left-wingers

.

I answered:

Weapons. of. mass. destruction.

Which glaringly destroys your assumptions of right/left.

Check and mate.

 

[JustaServant]

Were those “Christian” nations attempting to force their “Christianity” on other “Christian” nations?

No.

Were Islamic entities engaging in jihad attempting to impose Islam on non-Islamic countries?

I suppose you could make the case that constitutional democracies are attempting to “impose” or defend free speech and freedom in the face of jihadist terrorism when they fight terrorism, if you want to argue that.

All nations invoke God or gods in their wars because patriotism is more often than not tied to their religion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Try to pay attention.
You said:

.

I answered:

Which glaringly destroys your assumptions of right/left.

Check and mate.

As Aristotle said, “One swallow does not a summer make.”

Giving ONE example does not make your case.

I said, “Far more likely.”

Giving one example does not establish a pattern nor the degree of likelihood. Or do you want to suggest that one instance is, indeed, all that is required to make a logical argument and establish a pattern?

The phrases “check and mate” and “glaringly destroys your assumptions” seem to imply that you do think just one example is, indeed, your standard for demonstrating the ability or proclivity (whether of the right or the left) for using or not using reason and evidence.

It also does nothing to bolster your case that leftists are adept at using reason and evidence - assuming, of course, from your comments condemning the “far right,” that you are one.

Perhaps checkers is more your game?

 

[Peter_Plato]

All nations invoke God or gods in their wars because patriotism is more often than not tied to their religion.

Now that really isn’t the question, is it?

What nations do is kind of irrelevant since we are talking about the peacefulness of religions and not nations.

The question is whether religions themselves invoke God or gods in the waging – or more accurately – in the initiation of war.

Catholicism, for example, has only one doctrine relevant to justifying war and that is the doctrine of just war in response to aggression. It does not justify the initiation of aggressive acts of war anywhere.

Can the same claim be made with respect to Islam? Is there anywhere where Islam, in its accepted doctrines, justifies the initiation of aggression on other religions or people’s merely to subjugate them?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The answer has been proven, no more than Christianity.

You standard for “proven” has now been put into question. Where was it proven, precisely?

 

[IGotQuestions]

Can the same claim be made with respect to Islam? Is there anywhere where Islam, in its accepted doctrines, justifies the initiation of aggression on other religions or people’s merely to subjugate them?

Why pick on just Islam?
Catholics and Protestants have used Scripture to justify aggression and subjugate people for centuries. Anyone can take a passage from the Bible and use it to justify almost anything.
I have never read the Koran. But I suspect, like other ancient works, it is filled with things we would reject today. Just like parts of the Bible.
Why single out the Muslims? Unless it is to subjugate THEM?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Giving one example does not establish a pattern nor the degree of likelihood. Or do you want to suggest that one instance is, indeed, all that is required to make a logical argument and establish a pattern?

All it took was one lie and a million human beings lost their lives in an unjust war.
Many on the right are evangelicals who seem to make it a habit of invoking God in these endless wars.
Islam is no more violent than Christianity, Hinduism, or Mormonism.

 

[JustaServant]

Can the same claim be made with respect to Islam? Is there anywhere where Islam, in its accepted doctrines, justifies the initiation of aggression on other religions or people’s merely to subjugate them?

I simply do not believe any religion has a corner on human depravity. Are you saying Islam does?

 

[Tomdstone]

All it took was one lie and a million human beings lost their lives in an unjust war.

Incredibly sad, isn’t it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why pick on just Islam?
Catholics and Protestants have used Scripture to justify aggression and subjugate people for centuries. Anyone can take a passage from the Bible and use it to justify almost anything.
I have never read the Koran. But I suspect, like other ancient works, it is filled with things we would reject today. Just like parts of the Bible.
Why single out the Muslims? Unless it is to subjugate THEM?

Go back and read what you wrote. You move from “Why pick on just Islam?” to “Why not pick on Catholics and Protestants?” That move is actually a category mistake.

If you want to make a proper comparison you should move from “Why pick on just Islam?” to “Why not pick on Catholicism or Anglicanism or Buddhism?”

Apparently, you fail to see the proper distinction I have tried to make.

Not singling out Islam for criticism means the criticism should be distributed to a critique of other religions NOT to the practitioners or adherents of those religions.

Singling out Muslims is akin to singling out Catholics and Protestants. My point is that we ought to move away from that approach completely and focus on the tenets of the religions themselves rather than on the behaviours or actions of those who purport to represent those religions.

What you suspect about the Koran or other ancient works is somewhat irrelevant, as well, because knowing what is in the Koran would be important for concluding anything at all about Islam, as a religion. What is written in the Koran or other “holy books” and why is crucial to the issue of not singling out Islam.

What people do with those writings - twisting or justifying their behaviours by using them - is a whole separate question. And the two questions should not be confused or mixed.

In short, Islam as a religion can reasonably be compared to Christianity as a religion by assessing the teachings and doctrines of each

And Muslims as a group can be reasonably compared to Protestants or Catholics or Hindus or Jews or Buddhists.

However, to compare Islam, as a religion, to Protestants and Catholics, as practitioners (as you attempt to do above) is simply confused and confusing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All it took was one lie and a million human beings lost their lives in an unjust war.
Many on the right are evangelicals who seem to make it a habit of invoking God in these endless wars.
Islam is no more violent than Christianity, Hinduism, or Mormonism.

This is just confused.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

However, to compare Islam, as a religion, to Protestants and Catholics, as practitioners (as you attempt to do above) is simply confused and confusing.

In what way? They are human beings with human frailties. How have they been different historically than the ‘practitioners’ of Christianity?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I simply do not believe any religion has a corner on human depravity. Are you saying Islam does?

I have no need to “say” anything. The facts are available for anyone to FAIRLY judge for themselves about what the effects of the actual teachings of each religion have been, as opposed to how those teachings have been hijacked and twisted by human depravity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In what way? They are human beings with human frailties. How have they been different historically than the ‘practitioners’ of Christianity?

Apparently, you still have an issue distinguishing between the tenets or basic teachings of each religion and what the supposed practitioners of each end up doing when they construe or misconstrue those tenets.

Since you seem unwilling or unable to see the distinction, there is not much left to discuss.

In any case, there appear to be constraints on the forum which don’t permit discussing those critical differences in great detail, so there isn’t much point in continuing, in any case.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

In any case, there appear to be constraints on the forum which don’t permit discussing those critical differences in great detail, so there isn’t much point in continuing, in any case.

I don’t think so.
The very existence of this thread shows otherwise. This is the second time you have claimed this. I think you are simply using it as an out because your argument simply falls short. You have no ‘details’.