Islam is a religion of peace

  • Thread starter Thread starter HolyCrusader007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well technically most religions are religions of peace since that technically they all teach peace towards others. Christianity is a religion of peace; so is Buddhism. I think it’s how people in that religion treat others rather than the religion itself which can cause people to form opinions about the religion itself. And then you get all these hasty generalizations and stuff.

Also I have a feeling that people who say that Islam is a religion of peace are making it “special” even though some of its ethical practices have counterparts in others.
 
meltzerboy said:
This is a noble sentiment, and I thank you for sharing it. For two of the best synopses of the Jewish perspective on the issue, please key in “Mishpatim (5769): Helping an Enemy” by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and “Itzik’s Well: Mishpatim (5769): Saving your Enemy’s Sorry *** and Other Gateways to the Divine.”
Click to expand...
These are beautiful synopses from their titles; The one who is “Helping an Enemy”, and “Saving your Enemy’s Sorry” both reveal a Love that is revealed from the Stronger to the weaker.

The love displayed from the weaker (Christian)for the stronger (Enemy), is a divine love God works through and from the weaker one that prays to bring the stronger to repentance for Love of God.

Islam moves to be the stronger by it’s conquering of all others, to summit to Islam’s Allah. A religion that moves to conquer over others to summit, when exercised by peaceful means and moderation do not work, Islam raises it’s flag of punishment in the name of Islam.

It is from this root of Islam to conquer by what ever means. Peace is not a consistent virtue of practice in Islam, when a Muslim loves his own, but hates all others. Interesting, that the Muslim will justify this Truth by referencing the historic battles from Judaism and Christian rulers.

When Christianity itself is never a secular power. The Kingdom of God is not of the World. Islam tries to make Allah’s kingdom of the World, by mixing it’s secular powers with religion. Which history proves, it is never at peace.

Peace be with you:)
 
Yep.

Not true, perfect peace, but a step on the way.

The radicals are a perversion of Islam and religion. Fundamentalism doesn’t belong in religion.
 
The trouble is, is that Mohammedanism teaches “peace”, but in the same way the USSR prattled on endlessly about “peace.” Both used the word in a way that most other people do not. Their idea of “peace” means a state of existence without anyone else. Communism, *by its own definition * was per se in conflict with capitalism: that was dialectical materialism’s first precept.

In the same way, Mohammedanism divides the world into two: dar es salam and dar el harb. The first means the Place of Peace: the Mohammedan world. The second means the Place of War. So when they say they are a religion of “peace”, they mean it, sincerely. But they mean it in the sense that there will be no peace until the dar el harb is exterminated. Yes, they are very much like the Daleks that way.
 
It’s true there has been strife in christian lands.

Yet the command to go kill other dissenters and members of other religions, and maltreatment of women etc, is not written into our Christian religion. We came up with that on our own. Our religion asks us to refrain from these things. Yet we do them anyway because of sin.

Things such as these are encouraged by the Islamic religion.
 
I’ve read and observed too much for me to believe that it is a religion of peace. I’m sorry if this is offensive. If peace is defined as an absence of violence in doctrine and the practice of adherents, it seems to me, at least, from an objective standpoint, to strike out on both accounts. You really, and seriously, don’t find many, (if any) Christian or Jewish groups and cells of terrorists. This is likely due to the nature of Jewish and particularly Christian doctrine which is set on a battlefield, but a battlefield of philosophy and theology. Not radical fundamentalism. Is this to say that I believe that all Muslims, are because of their faith, physically violent to non-Muslims? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But there are enough of them to have a sincere impact on the every day life of much, if not all, of the world for a goodly while now. To those Muslims who do not find violence in the Q’ran, and believe that Christians and Jews are being persecuted in Holy Lands, and are aghast at the horrors being done in the name of Islam around the world on fairly steady basis, may God bless you, and please do not take offense. If some offshoot of Catholics were doing the same, and saying it was because of the Gospels, or the Sermon on the mount or some such thing, I would be just as disturbed. Perhaps more so. Because Christ left no way for His teachings to be interpreted as such, even by the most ardent fundamentalist. We may only defend ourselves, our lands and our families. I am open to the Islam BEING a faith of peace, and while I know the majority of Muslims say this is how they feel, it is still not playing out that way. My apologies, but mostly our prayers. For all of us.

Shalom
 
Can you cite one example of a Christian leader using the Gospel text in order to carry out atrocities please?
 
Islam imagines that it is a religion of peace, but only in those areas where Islam is the only religion.

Once the entire world is Muslim, then we will know Islamic peace.😦
 
Randy_Carson said:
Islam imagines that it is a religion of peace, but only in those areas where Islam is the only religion.

Once the entire world is Muslim, then we will know Islamic peace.😦
Click to expand...
That’s going to be hard to imagine when Islam is the only religion when it is suffering from severe internecine issues. :eek:

MJ
 
Randy_Carson said:
Islam imagines that it is a religion of peace, but only in those areas where Islam is the only religion.

Once the entire world is Muslim, then we will know Islamic peace.😦
Click to expand...
  1. In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.
From Evangelii Gaudium.
 
What Gospel text did they distort to commit atrocities? Do you have chapter and verse?
 
dronald said:
What Gospel text did they distort to commit atrocities? Do you have chapter and verse?
Click to expand...
Don’t know about those individuals using it, but “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Don’t know about those individuals using it, but “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
Click to expand...
Someone mentioned using the Gospel. So I would assume being able to quote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Or even any writing of the NT.
 
dronald said:
Someone mentioned using the Gospel. So I would assume being able to quote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Or even any writing of the NT.
Click to expand...
-Where I’m from the term “gospel/Gospel” is interchangeable with the term “Bible.”
-Is the OT somehow less of a part of the Christian faith and holy text than the NT?
 
oldcatholicguy said:
-Where I’m from the term “gospel/Gospel” is interchangeable with the term “Bible.”
-Is the OT somehow less of a part of the Christian faith and holy text than the NT?
Click to expand...
Hebrews 8:6 But as it is, Christ { Greek b he b } has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord, ’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more. "

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.​

Since we are bound by the NT and Jesus not stoning an adulteress is our highest moral example, even though the OT was quite alright with it; yes, I would like a NT reference.

Should be easy!
 
But these really couldn’t be classified as “Christian leaders”.
 
dronald said:
Hebrews 8:6 But as it is, Christ { Greek b he b } has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord, ’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more. "

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.​

Since we are bound by the NT and Jesus not stoning an adulteress is our highest moral example, even though the OT was quite alright with it; yes, I would like a NT reference.

Should be easy!
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with people using passages from Scripture (another term from where I’m from that describes the Bible) to justify bad acts. If we were talking about what Christianity actually teaches instead of individual passages from the Bible than your above, of course, would be of use.

Going back to the root of our exchange (Islam) we need to apply the same standard. Not just grabbing X passage from the Quran and saying “see this is what it teaches;” but grabbing X passage from the Quran and putting it into context with the rest of the Quran and Islamic theology.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Which has nothing to do with people using passages from Scripture (another term from where I’m from that describes the Bible) to justify bad acts. If we were talking about what Christianity actually teaches instead of individual passages from the Bible than your above, of course, would be of use.

Going back to the root of our exchange (Islam) we need to apply the same standard. Not just grabbing X passage from the Quran and saying “see this is what it teaches;” but grabbing X passage from the Quran and putting it into context with the rest of the Quran and Islamic theology.
Click to expand...
The comment that Christians use The Gospels to justify atrocities is false is all I’m saying. If it were true, we would have examples of said quotes.

Islam has official rules on adultery. While Jesus forgave the woman, Muhammad let a woman give birth then stoned her. Or Muhammad interpreted the Torah to have a couple stoned. This is not peace.
 
dronald said:
The comment that Christians use The Gospels to justify atrocities is false is all I’m saying. If it were true, we would have examples of said quotes.

Islam has official rules on adultery. While Jesus forgave the woman, Muhammad let a woman give birth then stoned her. Or Muhammad interpreted the Torah to have a couple stoned. This is not peace.
Click to expand...
And you’d be wrong because the passage about witches has been used in the past to justify the execution of “witches” and witch-hunting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top