Peaceful Islam? Some disagree

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnworthySoul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, it does, thank you. So these people get paid to answer questions. Now what incentive does getting paid give them to “lie” and answer in any way other than they normally would? Will they not get paid if they answer a question a certain way? Seriosuly, what does getting paid have to do with how they answered?
 
40.png
UnworthySoul:
Yes, it does, thank you. So these people get paid to answer questions. Now what incentive does getting paid give them to “lie” and answer in any way other than they normally would? Will they not get paid if they answer a question a certain way? Seriosuly, what does getting paid have to do with how they answered?
Click to expand...
What incentive does it give them to tell the truth??
 
No, don’t try to change the subject. I posted an article syaing these people voted a certain way. You said they got paid to answer the survey. You have in no way proven that getting paid for it had anything to do with how they answered. You said they got paid for doing the survey. So what? What difference does that make? What does getting paid have to do with the results of the survey?
 
anywhere muslims meet non muslims, no matter if they are christians, jews, hindus, buddhists, communist atheists, there are problems, east timor, philippines, xinjiang, kashmir, israel, sudan, nigeria, chechnya, and now the big cities of europe with important muslim communities.

It isnt something made up, there is obviously a problem.

IMO, the islamic world never matured, they never had great civil wars of religion (catholics vs protestans) like those europeans had in the 16 and early 17 century, after those devastating wars europeans felt religion was no longer something worth fighting for.

Also, you can see the muslim posters here defending islam by saying, you used to do the same 500 years ago!!, which I think proves my point

but we no longer do that, thats the point
 
40.png
UnworthySoul:
No, don’t try to change the subject. I posted an article syaing these people voted a certain way. You said they got paid to answer the survey. You have in no way proven that getting paid for it had anything to do with how they answered. You said they got paid for doing the survey. So what? What difference does that make? What does getting paid have to do with the results of the survey?
Click to expand...
I did not think I was changing the subject:( …I was just asking a question. All I am saying is that by getting paid to do this poll perhaps means that the numbers may not be accurate. I have no way to prove this one way or the other…just my humble opinion is all.
We cant prove if getting paid or not supplied honest answers we can not prove that getting paid or not did not sway the outcome of the poll.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
This is a perspective question, but what type of Islam did Muhammed support? Was he a pacifist? Would Muhammed call Islam a “religion of peace”? If you want to know the true tenets of the faith, you have to go back to the model. For Christians, that is Christ. For Muslims, that is Muhammed. I think we need to be objective in exploring this vexing question. If “Muslim” pacifists are the ones who are trying to protray Islam as a peaceful religion, when historically it never has been, then are they not the ones who are the “extremists”? We have to take a careful look at Islam through the lense of history to see what the true tenets of the faith are. We have to look at Muhammed, the model of the faith, to see what the real intentions of the faith are. While I agree that there are some past Islamic leaders, such as Sal Addin, who were considered fair and just, there are many more who used warfare and conquest as a means of spreading the religion. Now mind you, all major world religions have done this, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. The question germain to this thread however is, was Muhammed a “peaceful religionist”?
Click to expand...
Instead of debating whether people paid to answer poll questions are truthful or not truthful, how about addressing the point of the thread, which Scott LaFrance reiterates in his post: Was Muhammed a “peaceful religionist”?
 
40.png
shockerfan:
Instead of debating whether people paid to answer poll questions are truthful or not truthful, how about addressing the point of the thread, which Scott LaFrance reiterates in his post: Was Muhammed a “peaceful religionist”?
Click to expand...
I dont have an answer to the question…but I have found an interesting view to that question…
beliefnet.com/story/114/story_11460_1.html
 
40.png
Booklover:
Yes, the article is very complimentary to Mohammed. The writer, Alex Kronemer, was a co-producer of “Mohammed, Legacy of a Prophet” the show that was aired on PBS.

Here’s Daniel Pipes’ opinion on the PBS show:

catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0051.html
Click to expand...
Interesting review. But are we only looking for things that enforce the negative views? I mean I have come across other articles that show similar things…how do we know what is correct or incorrect?
 
It seems obvious that there is both good and bad in Islam. The thing is, the bad has taken off in such a widespread violent way. To ignore it and say it’s not “real” Islam is to ignore the fact that there is rampant violence at least associated with it. My point is that there ARE people, and the number of them is frightening, that see Islam as a catalyst for such violence and they carry it out. Indeed these people think it is justified by the Koran. And like it or not, there are countless silent supporters.

Maybe it’s because there is no central authority in Islam to lay down the law, so to speak.

Maybe it’s because Islamic scholars will tell you that by praying somewhere they consider that land they just prayed in, even if it is not theirs, is now Islamic land. That kind of arrogance must be attractive to the overzealous.

Maybe it’s because Islam, in it’s simplicity makes it difficult for these people who carry out attacks to understand that it is NOT ok to kill people who believe differently than they do.

How can these people (the Islamists), and so many of them, all see that in Islam it is ok to kill innocents, because there ARE no innocents? You are either Muslim or khafir.

The truth is I don’t know, but I have ideas and I know something MUST be done. Look at Sufi Islam, there has never been, as far as I know, a Muslim terrorist from that particular sect. What are they doing different? It bears looking into.

How can people so easily blame the West and yet give horrid regimes like the madmen in charge of Iran and other gov’ts like those of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, etc a pass? These regimes are murderous at their core. Oh, I know, it will be said that they are not true Islamic regimes, but come on, that’s just not honest. It’s like Communists who say that the USSR was not true Communism. Enough excuses, if these people are hijacking Islam, then other Muslims need to stop playing the part of victim and say “No more!” I know people say Islamic groups are doing that, but I also know that the Koran says it is ok to lie to “infidels” if it is for the furtherance of Islam. Soo how are we supposed to trust Muslims?

I have great hope for the people of Iran, the young people there are tired of the Ayatollahs and their hardline Islamic rule. They want reform. Could this not be anything but good? No doubt Iran would remain Islamic, and the election of a new president who is a severe hardliner is a big setback for those Iranians who want to live their own lives. But I continue to pray for them, that they get their freedom.

Now it is no secret that I think Islam is a heresy much as Belloc so poigniantly showed, but if people wish to follow Islam, that is for them to decide. They must however, understand that some people will need more than verbal assurances of their disdain for the terrorists.

More later, I’m still gathering my thoughts on this.
 
40.png
UnworthySoul:
It seems obvious that there is both good and bad in Islam. The thing is, the bad has taken off in such a widespread violent way. To ignore it and say it’s not “real” Islam is to ignore the fact that there is rampant violence at least associated with it. My point is that there ARE people, and the number of them is frightening, that see Islam as a catalyst for such violence and they carry it out. Indeed these people think it is justified by the Koran. And like it or not, there are countless silent supporters.

Maybe it’s because there is no central authority in Islam to lay down the law, so to speak.

Maybe it’s because Islamic scholars will tell you that by praying somewhere they consider that land they just prayed in, even if it is not theirs, is now Islamic land. That kind of arrogance must be attractive to the overzealous.

Maybe it’s because Islam, in it’s simplicity makes it difficult for these people who carry out attacks to understand that it is NOT ok to kill people who believe differently than they do.

How can these people (the Islamists), and so many of them, all see that in Islam it is ok to kill innocents, because there ARE no innocents? You are either Muslim or khafir.

The truth is I don’t know, but I have ideas and I know something MUST be done. Look at Sufi Islam, there has never been, as far as I know, a Muslim terrorist from that particular sect. What are they doing different? It bears looking into.

How can people so easily blame the West and yet give horrid regimes like the madmen in charge of Iran and other gov’ts like those of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, etc a pass? These regimes are murderous at their core. Oh, I know, it will be said that they are not true Islamic regimes, but come on, that’s just not honest. It’s like Communists who say that the USSR was not true Communism. Enough excuses, if these people are hijacking Islam, then other Muslims need to stop playing the part of victim and say “No more!” I know people say Islamic groups are doing that, but I also know that the Koran says it is ok to lie to “infidels” if it is for the furtherance of Islam. Soo how are we supposed to trust Muslims? ( Are you refering to all of them? or a certain sect?)

I have great hope for the people of Iran, the young people there are tired of the Ayatollahs and their hardline Islamic rule. They want reform. Could this not be anything but good? No doubt Iran would remain Islamic, and the election of a new president who is a severe hardliner is a big setback for those Iranians who want to live their own lives. But I continue to pray for them, that they get their freedom.

Now it is no secret that I think Islam is a heresy much as Belloc so poigniantly showed, but if people wish to follow Islam, that is for them to decide. They must however, understand that some people will need more than verbal assurances of their disdain for the terrorists.

More later, I’m still gathering my thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
I dare say… well written.
 
40.png
Karin:
I dare say… well written.
Click to expand...
I thank you.

As to this question: ( Are you refering to all of them? or a certain sect?) All I can say is I just don’t know. As I said the Sufi Muslims do not take part in terror attacks so it is plain that Islam can be reconciled with peace. Now, I cannot know if that would be “true” Isalm, but it bears looking into. My fear is that Muslims simply don’t want to.
 
Mohammed’s early spreading of the religion was very often accomplished by the sword though.
 
40.png
UnworthySoul:
Mohammed’s early spreading of the religion was very often accomplished by the sword though.
Click to expand...
I thought the above article pretty well explained why at times this occured.
 
40.png
Karin:
Here is another view to the question:
harunyahya.com/32terrorism_pacifism_soc10.html
Click to expand...
The one thing I cannot agree with is the idea that Mohammed used war only as a last defense.

This is blatantly untrue, The Bani Qurayzha and a number of other tribes were under seige in their own fortresses for weeks before they capitulated.

Also note, that Mohammed had the habit of sending emissaries to nearby kings to say that if they did not accept him as the final prophet, he would be duty bound to bring his muslim army to them, where they would be foreced to accept his terms.

Many muslims will equate this with Moses in the Old testament,
Whilst the pagans of arabia were similar enough to the pagan tribes that Moses encountered and slaughtered.

Mohammed did not kill these same pagans (tribalism is a strong feeling) , but he slaughtered the jews, who were not offending God in anyway, but had certainly offended him, by refusing to accept him as their prophet.

Either way I believe they felt justified, better to die, than to submit to a false prophet.
 
**Massacre of Muslims

The reverse which they had suffered on Mt. Uhud lowered the prestige of the Muslims with the Arab tribes and also with the Jews of Yathrib. Tribes which had inclined toward the Muslims now inclined toward Quraysh. The Prophet’s followers were attacked and murdered when they went abroad in little companies. Khubayb, one of his envoys, was captured by a desert tribe and sold to Quraysh, who tortured him to death in Makkah publicly.

**Expulsion of Bani Nadhir **

And the Jews, despite their treaty, now hardly concealed their hostility. They even went so far in flattery of Quraysh as to declare the religion of the pagan Arabs superior to Islam. The Prophet was obliged to take punitive action against some of them. The tribe of Bani Nadhir were besieged in their strong towers, subdued and forced to emigrate. The Hypocrites had sympathized with the Jews and secretly egged them on.

**The War of the Trench **

**In the fifth year of the Hijrah the idolaters made a great effort to destroy Islam in the War of the Clans or War of the Trench, as it is variously called; when Quraysh with all their clans and the great desert tribe of Ghatafan with all their clans, an army of ten thousand men rode against Al-Madinah (Yathrib). The Prophet (by the advice of Salman the Persian, it is said) caused a deep trench to be dug before the city, and himself led the work of digging it. The army of the clans was stopped by the trench, a novelty in Arab warfare. It seemed impassable for cavalry, which formed their strength. They camped in sight of it and daily showered their arrows on its defenders. While the Muslims were awaiting the assault, news came that Bani Qurayzah, a Jewish tribe of Yathrib which had till then been loyal, had gone over to the enemy. The case seemed desperate. But the delay caused by the trench had damped the ardor of the clans, and one who was secretly a Muslim managed to sow distrust between Quraysh and their Jewish allies, so that both hesitated to act. Then came a bitter wind from the sea, which blew for three days and nights so terribly that not a tent could be kept standing, not a fire lighted, not a pot boiled. The tribesmen were in utter misery. At length, one night the leader of Quraysh decided that the torment could be borne no longer and gave the order to retire. When Ghatafan awoke next morning they found Quraysh had gone and they too took up their baggage and retreated.
**Punishment of Bani Qurayzah **

On the day of the return from the trench the Prophet ordered war on the treacherous Bani Qurayzah, who, conscious of their guilt, had already taken to their towers of refuge. After a siege of nearly a month they had to surrender unconditionally. They only begged that they might be judged by a member of the Arab tribe of which they were adherents. The Prophet granted their request. But the judge, upon whose favor they had counted, condemned their fighting men to death, their women and children to slavery.

[64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:oAzr9h2IgPcJ:www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/Prophet/Life/article02.shtml+Bani+Qurayzah+&hl=en](http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache<img src=)
 
40.png
Karin:
Here is another view to the question:
harunyahya.com/32terrorism_pacifism_soc10.html
Click to expand...
As a non-Muslim, the first question that comes to mind after reading this is if the teachings in the Koran are so obvious about the use of war and the goodness of pacifism, why do so many who claim your faith don’t get it?

It seems to me your faith has a problem that many Christian denominations have: No central authority to officially discern the true interpretation of your holy book. (The big difference is that the many Christian denominations I refer to don’t have significant numbers of followers who employ terrorism to accomplish their goals.) This is one of the reasons I am Catholic. It makes sense that God would provide us a way to determine the true meanings of what is written in the Bible. We believe that Jesus set Peter as the head of his Church on earth, and gave him the authority to discern the truth that God has revealed. This authority has been handed down throught the generations of Popes. It is much like having a “supreme court” to interpret the constitution, so that lawlessness and anarchy can be avoided.

Why do you suppose Islam does not have this? Why would Allah let their be so much confusion that seems to have such horrible consequences?
 
40.png
shockerfan:
As a non-Muslim, the first question that comes to mind after reading this is if the teachings in the Koran are so obvious about the use of war and the goodness of pacifism, why do so many who claim your faith don’t get it? Please note that I am not a Muslim /follower of Islam etc. Also there is no where that I state it is!

It seems to me your faith has a problem that many Christian denominations have: No central authority to officially discern the true interpretation of your holy book. (The big difference is that the many Christian denominations I refer to don’t have significant numbers of followers who employ terrorism to accomplish their goals.) This is one of the reasons I am Catholic. It makes sense that God would provide us a way to determine the true meanings of what is written in the Bible. We believe that Jesus set Peter as the head of his Church on earth, and gave him the authority to discern the truth that God has revealed. This authority has been handed down throught the generations of Popes. It is much like having a “supreme court” to interpret the constitution, so that lawlessness and anarchy can be avoided.

Why do you suppose Islam does not have this? Why would Allah let their be so much confusion that seems to have such horrible consequences?
Click to expand...
As to the rest of your questions/ post…perhaps a Muslim can answer them. Once again…I have noticed that answers have been supplied to many questions(on other threads) but no one wants to accept the others answers.
 
40.png
Karin:
As to the rest of your questions/ post…perhaps a Muslim can answer them. Once again…I have noticed that answers have been supplied to many questions(on other threads) but no one wants to accept the others answers.
Click to expand...
I have only started reading these some of these threads…my apologies if I am a little behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top