How peaceful is Islam?

Above 98% of the people killed by ISIS, since its formation, have been Muslim. If all Muslims were terrorists, everyone would be dead right now - it is the largest religion in the world. There is a quote (ch. 5 v. 32) in the Quran saying, in translation, 'to kill one person is as if to kill all of humanity' - it is strictly forbidden in the religion to kill an innocent person.

ISIS is to Islam what the KKK was to Christianity.
 
Not really. I am saying that ISIS is a terrorist group that are incorrectly using religion as an excuse/motive to do what they do, when all of the things they are doing are strictly against the religion's rules.

To be fair, they have executed a few apostates.
 
To be fair, they have executed a few apostates.

No doubt that they did, but it is another one of many things that is not allowed in Islam.

To quote the prophet Muhammad (PBUH): “Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

+ "Allah forbiddeth you not, those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers" (60:8)

& from the Quran (5:42): “If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and His Messenger.”

They are using Islam as an excuse for their actions - as a Muslim who has lived my entire life in a Muslim country, I can still tell you to that I have not met a single Muslim to this day that sympathises with ISIS (not to say that they do not exist, simply to emphasise how much of a minority it is).
 
As someone who is frequently critical of religion there are two stories in the press today that highlight the positive:

Firstly the muslims of Preston immediately organising collections of goods and aid for the flood victims of Carlisle, even though (and I may wrong) Carlisle isn't particularly associated with the muslim community.

Secondly, whilst a quarter of a million people have signed a petition to ban the odious American Trump from entering Britain, following his anti-muslim outburst, in contrast the muslim council of Britain have invited him on an inter-faith tour of London, where they would buy him lunch.

Well done.
 
I'd be more interested in hearing the result of the survey when they're asked about the Wahhabi/Salafist ideology, rather than a specific name.
I haven't done a survey, but Wahabi's are very much an unpopular, though affluent minority in most Muslim countries. The obvious exception is Saudi Arabia, where it is the sponsored by the state who fund and promote it within the Kingdom and abroad.

Over the last decade however, due to their own problems with radicalized terrorists, KSA have been promoting a more ''moderate'' version of Wahabism.

Can I just call them Wahabbists instead, then?
Believe it or not, most Wahabis would be offended by that.
 
ISIS are as much Muslim as the KKK are Christian.
What's this all about? Seen this comparison about 4 times today. You realise (most of) the Churches used to be well in favour of white power and slavery right? If ISIS were the same as the contemporary KKK we wouldn't even be talking about them, like we never talk about the KKK.
 
Obviously I am saying ISIS are not Muslims and KKK are not Christians.

It does not matter what each claim to be. The acts of both these groups go completely against the teachings of the Holy books. That is the only test.
Sure, if you overlook all the bits in the books that tell them they're superior to other people and are allowed to rape and kill them. Don't get me wrong, it's great when people overlook them. But lets not pretend they're not there when someone invokes them.
 
Obviously I am saying ISIS are not Muslims and KKK are not Christians.

It does not matter what each claim to be. The acts of both these groups go completely against the teachings of the Holy books. That is the only test.

Given your religious expertise in both faiths - prove it.
 
I'm so tired that I read that as 'Allah loveth the drug dealers'.

Technically, that could apply, at least for those who treat their clients fairly and don't step on the coke too much or spray the weed with water to make it heavier.
 
As usual I totally agree with you. Good post which has me thinking again.

I do think 'subaltern' elements in modern Islamic societies such as liberal bloggers, feminists, etc., are having an impact, albeit one with unforeseen consequences. No better illustration of that than the 'Arab Spring' where, despite their visible prominence in urban protests, they totally underestimated the Islamists' hold on the masses. But with the right combination of circumstance the day may come when they can splay a greater role in shaping these societies. Nothing inevitable about the Islamists' triumph in the long-term.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...alues-151215125017608.html?platform=hootsuite

Short but interesting debate that goes along the lines of my view of the topic. THe woman is great and raises many important issues, while the guy stands for many problems of modern islam. He is a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing and would probably agree with fundamental christians in terms of social conservatism.
 
I'd say it's around 89.4567% peacefuln
 
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...alues-151215125017608.html?platform=hootsuite

Short but interesting debate that goes along the lines of my view of the topic. THe woman is great and raises many important issues, while the guy stands for many problems of modern islam. He is a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing and would probably agree with fundamental christians in terms of social conservatism.
I'll watch it tonight, but what makes you think Dr Yasir Qadhi is 'a wolf in sheep's clothing' and that he stands for 'many problems in modern Islam'? Just so I know what to keep an ear out for when watching.
 
I'll watch it tonight, but what makes you think Dr Yasir Qadhi is 'a wolf in sheep's clothing' and that he stands for 'many problems in modern Islam'? Just so I know what to keep an ear out for when watching.

He promotes an extremely conservative doctrine that is in conflict with many modern values (e.g. role of women; sexuality; tolerance). What he promotes is and should be legal, but any liberal/progressive should oppose those values because they are heavily outdated. That is not something unique to Islam, but it seems much more common in the mainstream.
 
Why is that relevant here? Bible has the same punishment as Quran for blasphemy. Why blame religion for the misgivings of man?

You are commiting a fallacy. Nobody is comparing religions here. We are only discussing the supposed "peaceful" ness of one religion.

If you want christianity to be criticized, start a thread on it and I will post similar stuff there.
 
We are only discussing the supposed "peaceful" ness of one religion.

I define "religion" as what is written in holy books and "religious people" as those who follow it. Going by that definition, blasphemy is pretty much gets the same treatment in bible and quran i.e. no difference in 'religion'. It's the religious people who react differently to similar texts.

You don't see how 100,000 muslims asking for someone to be killed because of something he said about their Prophet might be relevant here? Come on man, you're smart enough to work it out.

I'm just pointing out that it was not something that is unique to Islam.