I am so confused. One guy says the Quran is all about peace and does not mention "killing infidels" at all while somebody else says it does mention that Islam should be enforced on "the unfaithful" or kill them. What's the truth? I'm not even talking about the interpretation but what's literally on paper.
How peaceful is Islam?
- Thread starter Momochiru
- Start date
This.
I don't have time to respond in detail but cash crops (promoted by the govt, showing the effect of bad govt policy, and also expanded by market forces) are one of the many reasons behind both declining availability of foodgrains and are also well-correlated with farmer suicides. Beginning 1991 there has also been a huge shift of people away from permanent farmer status, not into industry or services, but casual work.
I'm not really sure what he means there (and maybe he can clarify? @Momochiru ) but he definitely stops short of saying that all muslims should feel responsible for the actions of jihadists.
The truth is you will find both types of texts in the Kuran. Those that say religion should not be enforced onto others and others that say kill all unbelievers wherever you find them.
You could read it and come to your own conclusions. At least that way you won't be relying on others to give you an answer.
How much of a religion is defined by the literal text of its sacred books versus the beliefs and current interpretations of the majority of its followers? I think quite a lot of religions could be made out to be particularly violent given their texts, but most followers are not really that different, just average human beings.
There are problems either way. If you judge a religion on its texts, how do you judge religions that are based on oral traditions instead? If you judge based on followers, what about religions followed only be a single tribe, which perhaps happens to be violent at present? Is the religion violent, or just its current followers?
It seems very difficult to give judgment on the character of a religion given the complexities involved.
There are problems either way. If you judge a religion on its texts, how do you judge religions that are based on oral traditions instead? If you judge based on followers, what about religions followed only be a single tribe, which perhaps happens to be violent at present? Is the religion violent, or just its current followers?
It seems very difficult to give judgment on the character of a religion given the complexities involved.
In the name of Atheism.
Fact is the current state of the Midldle East has zero to do with Islam. The political clamour to force out secular Arab leadership due to perceived or actual dictatorship imposed by them, without a careful plan to replace them with capable leadership plunged the region into state instability and allowed fringe radicacal groups, finally free of the iron fists that kept them at bay, to grow and spread their malignant influence backed by the deep financiaal pockets of both domestic and foreign idealogues and folks willing to further their political and economic agenda amidst the chaos.
What?
That's not true. He didn't kill anyone "in the name of atheism". I don't think a single person has ever been killed anywhere in the world "in the name of atheism".
Lots of people killed by atheists but that's a different point entirely.
How peaceful is Islam - its a tricky question but my take on it is
there are estimated to be circa 100,000 jihadist fighters in the world http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/
there are estimated to be about 1,500,000,000 muslims in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
so my maths says Islam is over 99.99% peaceful
there are estimated to be circa 100,000 jihadist fighters in the world http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/
there are estimated to be about 1,500,000,000 muslims in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
so my maths says Islam is over 99.99% peaceful
Source number 7 is "21 Signs of His Coming: Major Biblical Prophecies Being Fulfilled In Our Generation" so that's not off to a good start.
They were killed in the name of communism, if anything. Like I said, you can't kill someone in the name of atheism.
Tbf, considering communism is staunchly anti-religion, it's not too much of a stretch is it? Rather than saying 'killed in the name of atheism' I'd say it's 'killed in the name of anti-religion' which isn't too dissimilar. We all know what the founder of communism had to say about religion anyway.
No, this is a common fallacy in religion debates that has been dismissed plenty of times. Atheism is a position on a single question to do with whether you believe in God, it's not a philosophy or a world view.
It kind of is. Atheism is just a take on whether you believe in the existence of a higher power or not. If a political movement sees religions as a threat and takes steps to persecute those religions they're not doing it in the name of atheism, they're doing it to further their own political agenda. Blaming what happened in Russia on atheism would be as inaccurate as saying that the shootings in Paris were done in the name of theism.
You could, but hasn't really happened yet. It would have to be some pure anti-religion group, intent on ridding religion from the world by killing the faithful.
It wasn't done in the name of atheism, it was done in the name of Stalinism.
I guess it's possible Richard Dawkins has bored a few people to death. He does go on and on...
How about Albania after WWII to the ~mid/late 80s? Pretty difficult to argue, that they didn´t kill people in the name of atheism
Are people who believe gays and adulterers should be killed really peaceful? Even if they wouldn't do it themselves. A minority of Muslims believe that but it isn't 0.01%, it's probably around 25%.
Because you did that math just in your head? Or you read it from some credible anti-muslim source?
The argument that atheism never killed anyone - what about the Vendee after the French Revolution, explicitly aimed at ridding France of Catholicism and establishing Reason in it's place?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Reason
There are socio-political and geopolitical elements in those conflicts - but of course the same is true of just about every Muslim war or terrorist attack in this thread.
I'm not having a go at the point you guys are making because it's a good one - but I'd be slow to assume that there has never in the history of any idea been anyone malignant or cynical enough to use it as an excuse to kill some one else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Reason
There are socio-political and geopolitical elements in those conflicts - but of course the same is true of just about every Muslim war or terrorist attack in this thread.
I'm not having a go at the point you guys are making because it's a good one - but I'd be slow to assume that there has never in the history of any idea been anyone malignant or cynical enough to use it as an excuse to kill some one else.
Because you did that math just in your head? Or you read it from some credible anti-muslim source?
It's from Sam Harris and it's not quite what he said, according to him 20% of Muslims are either 'Jihadists' or 'Islamists'.
From an opinion survey conducted between 2008 and 2012 which interviewed 38,000 muslims. This was asking whether certain acts were morally wrong rather than punishable by death.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
Have you got a source for that? Or did you just make a wild guess?
Edit: Seen your response.
Muslims around the world also share similar views about the immorality of some behaviors. For example, across the six regions surveyed, median percentages of roughly eight-in-ten or more consistently say prostitution, homosexuality and suicide are morally wrong. Medians of at least 60% also condemn sex outside marriage, drinking alcohol, abortion and euthanasia.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
Have you got a source for that? Or did you just make a wild guess?
Edit: Seen your response.
Great for him.
They were killed because they refused to give up their religion not because of the political beliefs. I would wager that a large percentage of the people murdered held no dominant political beliefs. It was their refusal to give up religion that was reason they were killed.
Anyway that is not the important fact which is that evil people will used any belief system to commit atrocities it's not the belief that is ultimately responsible but the person/s perpetrating the act.
Then why do it's followers hold so many beliefs in common? It's like they're singing off of the same hymn sheet(pun intended)
As we don't seem to be dragging into the debate radical Christians who bomb abortion clinics or those that fail to condem the actions or believe that gays deserve to burn in the fires of hell for eternity (surely that can't be classified as peaceful) Then it was best to concentrate on the so called jihadist movement
It certainly seemed easier than applying a random percentage to a whole population based on somebody's mis interpretation of one question in an opinion survey
I think you're talking more about things like humanism and secularism rather than atheism. There's nothing to really 'follow' in atheism, it's just a collective term for people who don't believe in a deity or deities.
Which specific beliefs do you mean?
What about attitudes to people that convert away from Islam?
In the survey I posted, the stats specifically for people who want Sharia as the law of the land (median percentage) for those in favour of executing those who leave Islam were:
South Asia 76%
Middle East - North Africa 56%
Southeast Asia 27%
Central Asia 16%
Southern-eastern Europe 13%
1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).
2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.
3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.
4. Meaning comes from the living world.
The revolution was not about a battle of atheists against christians. There was a will to make the clergy pledge loyalty to the revolution and put them on the government payroll. This created some tensions and in Vendée it climaxed into a civil war, mostly between Cristians loyal to the revolution (with some atheists) and Chrisians loyal to the pope, backed by England.
Did you read the descriptions at all? It's exactly what happened at Mecca.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Fadak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Expedition_of_Wadi_al_Qura
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Mecca
The Saudis are pretty supportive of it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-sentences-poet-to-death-for-renouncing-islam
Last edited: