It wiki, it's a bad source, asa reader of three different biographies od Muhammad SAWS, the jews of Khaybar and Fedak did a lot to either kill muslims and broke many peace treaties, as for Mecca, the people who left Mecca to follow Muhammad SAWS were more than the ones who stayed there at the end and that's why when Muhammad SAWS entered Mecca there was also no fighting back and everyone was spared, in other every war Muslims had at the time they had orders not to fight against anyone who didn't fight back and to not get children, women, and elderly involved in the fight and not to hurt even a tree.
How peaceful is Islam?
- Thread starter Momochiru
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It wiki, it's a bad source, asa reader of three different biographies od Muhammad SAWS, the jews of Khaybar and Fedak did a lot to either kill muslims and broke many peace treaties, as for Mecca, the people who left Mecca to follow Muhammad SAWS were more than the ones who stayed there at the end and that's why when Muhammad SAWS entered Mecca there was also no fighting back and everyone was spared, in other every war Muslims had at the time they had orders not to fight against anyone who didn't fight back and to not get children, women, and elderly involved in the fight and not to hurt even a tree.
Whether they used force or just the threat of it, hey still set out to conquer most of the Arabian peninsula and did. The Romans, Mongols, etc. all were able to conquer or subdue areas without fighting through the threat of force. "Surrender/pay tribute or die" has been around a long time. Speaking of sources, what are the chances there would be any primary accounts of the conquest that were critical of him or his actions that haven't been destroyed?
That's bullshit. Saying that Stalin killed 20m people in the name of atheism (just cause he was an atheist) is like saying Hitler killed millions of people in the name of Christianity (yes, Hitler was a Christian).In the name of Atheism.
There were religious leaders killed in USSR for sure, and religion wasn't allowed, but the number of people who were killed for that reason is far far lower than 20m. Also, considering that atheism isn't an ideology like religions, there is nothing that can be done in the name of atheism. Atheism is just going a God further and not approving the existence of a God (well, all people all atheists when it comes to majority of Gods), but there is no ideology in that, no holy book and nothing that can be done 'in the name of atheism'.
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
Same reply for here.
Fun fact: Hoxha - the surname of Albanian dictator from WW2 up to the mid eighties - in Albanian means Mullah (Muslim priest).
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
But you don't get it, at the time he had to fight, when Muhammad SAWS moved to Al-Medinah there weren't many believers, they were tortured in Mecca, they killed man muslims and tortured them to no end, he also ended slavery there, fed the poor and gave money to them at one point there were so few people who didn't have enough money to live properly, you really have to read everything he gave to the community to appreciate how good of a person he was, you can't blame what the sick people are doing now on him, and when I said jews of Al-Khaybar and Fedak broke treaties those treaties were made when muslims were so week they could never be forced to sign them, they still used extreme methods against muslims back then and muslims had to fight, there were so few conquests in fact and mostly leaders of regions in the middle east coming to Mecca and converting to islam, most of the wars that happened were muslims fighting back against those who were trying to kill them, you really need to dig deep enough to know this, basing your views on a few things you read on the internet won't give you the knowledge to make your point valid, you need to go through history books and read Quran, when people talk about killing infidels and stuff like that they really don't know what they are talking about, like adultry for example, it doesn't really get you killed, there have to be at least FOUR eyewitnesses, does that ever happen? This laws were only enforced to tell people what they shouldn't do, one time a guy confessed to Muhammad SAWS of adultry, he told him to go away and that he don't want to listen and he didn't hear him 3 times until the guy went away that's how against violence the prophet was.Whether they used force or just the threat of it, hey still set out to conquer most of the Arabian peninsula and did. The Romans, Mongols, etc. all were able to conquer or subdue areas without fighting through the threat of force. "Surrender/pay tribute or die" has been around a long time. Speaking of sources, what are the chances there would be any primary accounts of the conquest that were critical of him or his actions that haven't been destroyed?
Fearless
Mighty Mouse
But you don't get it, at the time he had to fight, when Muhammad SAWS moved to Al-Medinah there weren't many believers, they were tortured in Mecca, they killed man muslims and tortured them to no end, he also ended slavery there, fed the poor and gave money to them at one point there were so few people who didn't have enough money to live properly, you really have to read everything he gave to the community to appreciate how good of a person he was, you can't blame what the sick people are doing now on him, and when I said jews of Al-Khaybar and Fedak broke treaties those treaties were made when muslims were so week they could never be forced to sign them, they still used extreme methods against muslims back then and muslims had to fight, there were so few conquests in fact and mostly leaders of regions in the middle east coming to Mecca and converting to islam, most of the wars that happened were muslims fighting back against those who were trying to kill them, you really need to dig deep enough to know this, basing your views on a few things you read on the internet won't give you the knowledge to make your point valid, you need to go through history books and read Quran, when people talk about killing infidels and stuff like that they really don't know what they are talking about, like adultry for example, it doesn't really get you killed, there have to be at least FOUR eyewitnesses, does that ever happen? This laws were only enforced to tell people what they shouldn't do, one time a guy confessed to Muhammad SAWS of adultry, he told him to go away and that he don't want to listen and he didn't hear him 3 times until the guy went away that's how against violence the prophet was.
Blaming the Jews. Twisting reality.
Typical.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
It's not blaming them though, he brought them up in his post about Islamic conquests.Blaming the Jews. Twisting reality.
Typical.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
I see @LeChuck had a username change, when I didn't see you name I thought you had guven up and I wouldn't have blamed you with so many pulling false statistics and saying things to fit their agendas.
But you don't get it, at the time he had to fight, when Muhammad SAWS moved to Al-Medinah there weren't many believers, they were tortured in Mecca, they killed man muslims and tortured them to no end, he also ended slavery there, fed the poor and gave money to them at one point there were so few people who didn't have enough money to live properly, you really have to read everything he gave to the community to appreciate how good of a person he was, you can't blame what the sick people are doing now on him, and when I said jews of Al-Khaybar and Fedak broke treaties those treaties were made when muslims were so week they could never be forced to sign them, they still used extreme methods against muslims back then and muslims had to fight, there were so few conquests in fact and mostly leaders of regions in the middle east coming to Mecca and converting to islam, most of the wars that happened were muslims fighting back against those who were trying to kill them, you really need to dig deep enough to know this, basing your views on a few things you read on the internet won't give you the knowledge to make your point valid, you need to go through history books and read Quran, when people talk about killing infidels and stuff like that they really don't know what they are talking about, like adultry for example, it doesn't really get you killed, there have to be at least FOUR eyewitnesses, does that ever happen? This laws were only enforced to tell people what they shouldn't do, one time a guy confessed to Muhammad SAWS of adultry, he told him to go away and that he don't want to listen and he didn't hear him 3 times until the guy went away that's how against violence the prophet was.
The Quran and histories written by Muslims are hardly objectively reliable sources since there is no allowance for criticism of the prophet or divergence from the "party line." If there's no alternate verification of the Islamic account, there will always be doubt about the accounts of the conquest, particularly when they're overly rosy. The problem is finding a neutral source or history when so many supposed histories are just agenda-driven tirades against Islam.
Last edited:
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
So that the only point you've taken from my post and ignored the rest? Ok I'll follow your point then, since Muslims follow what's in the Quran and what they read in the history books shouldn't this mean that they believe in a perfect human being who was peaceful and done only good things to everyone around him and thus following his footsteps they should be peaceful and try to only do good? So it shouldn't matter how accurate it is as long as that what muslims believe, right? Would real Muslims steal and kill innocent people even though they were strictly told not to? Wouldn't these books tell you if Islam is peaceful or not since since Muslims believe in them? That's what ''Islamists'' are doing and having heard of the bad things they've done in my own country I can assure you they aren't following islam, for example the statues that they broke in Tadmur were there before Muhammad SAWS was even born and when the caliphates had control of those cities they didn't do anything to those statues, and to my knowledge they were the best muslims and the guys who we should look up to from what muslims learn from history books even if we consider they aren't accurate sources, to muslims they are and should be followed.The Quran and histories written by Muslims are hardly objectively reliable sources since there is no allowance for criticism of the prophet or divergence from the "party line."
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
You won't learn much about Muhamnad's life by reading the Qur'an. The first biography which most Muslims consider reliable was written (or compiled might be a better term) by Ibn Ishaq in the middle of the eight century, over a hundred years after Muhammad's death. There are English translations which should be easy enough to find online. Anyone reading it who already believes Muhammad to be the perfect role model will find plenty of support in there for their view. Likewise, anyone who already believes Muhammad to be a paedo warlord will also find stuff to back them up.
LeChuck
CE Specialist
Muhammads (SAWS) name is only mentioned 5 times in the Qu'ran.
And I haven't been able to post much lately either due to the project I'm on.
@syrian_scholes - had to change the username for personal reasons, akhi!
And I haven't been able to post much lately either due to the project I'm on.
@syrian_scholes - had to change the username for personal reasons, akhi!
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.
Well duh. Point one pretty much covers the rest anyway.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
Also wanted to point out that Muslim read the history books and believe them and they've been strictly told not to kill any unarmed guy, children, women, and elderly, how can you not see the terrorism as an act of some to twist religion just to fi ttheir agenda?
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 20,041
Can't he both 2cents? Can't we all just agree he was a perfect paedo warlord and all move on with our lives?Anyone reading it who already believes Muhammad to be the perfect role model will find plenty of support in there for their view. Likewise, anyone who already believes Muhammad to be a paedo warlord will also find stuff to back them up.
Most certainly he was both. Similar to Alexander or Julius Ceaser.Can't he both 2cents? Can't we all just agree he was a perfect paedo warlord and all move on with our lives?
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
Also wanted to point out that Muslim read the history books and believe them and they've been strictly told not to kill any unarmed guy, children, women, and elderly, how can you not see the terrorism as an act of some to twist religion just to fi ttheir agenda?
As far as I understand ISIS want to spread a version of Islam that is as it was in Muhamed's day in an attempt to be as much like him as possible. They see their conflict now as running parallel to the Islam's early expansion through conquest led by the prophet. They want to spread what they perceive as the correct version of Islam and will butcher anyone that wishes to disagree.
I think that it is more how the first two Caliphs did after the Mohamed, rather than how exactly Mohamed did.As far as I understand ISIS want to spread a version of Islam that is as it was in Muhamed's day in an attempt to be as much like him as possible. They see their conflict now as running parallel to the Islam's early expansion through conquest led by the prophet. They want to spread what they perceive as the correct version of Islam and will butcher anyone that wishes to disagree.
Btw, read about the first four caliphs. They are loved by Muslims. but it doesn't look that there is much difference on how they behaved to Genghis Khan. They even fought (or were near it) among themselves, despite that apparently they were all awesome nice person whom Mohamed (in the name of God, obviously) promised heaven.
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
I think that it is more how the first two Caliphs did after the Mohamed, rather than how exactly Mohamed did.
Btw, read about the first four caliphs. They are loved by Muslims. but it doesn't look that there is much difference on how they behaved to Genghis Khan. They even fought (or were near it) among themselves, despite that apparently they were all awesome nice person whom Mohamed (in the name of God, obviously) promised heaven.
Whatever the exact details, they seem genuinely religiously motivated. Like in any institution there will be varying different personal motivations from member to member but I feel that for a lot of them it is a sincere religious cause, however twisted.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
But then they aren't though, from what I said do you see them fighting a war in the same way muslims did when Muhammad SAWS did?As far as I understand ISIS want to spread a version of Islam that is as it was in Muhamed's day in an attempt to be as much like him as possible. They see their conflict now as running parallel to the Islam's early expansion through conquest led by the prophet. They want to spread what they perceive as the correct version of Islam and will butcher anyone that wishes to disagree.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
Can you please point me to the source to see if it's actually what we believe in? If it's not then they aren't following it are they?I think that it is more how the first two Caliphs did after the Mohamed, rather than how exactly Mohamed did.
Btw, read about the first four caliphs. They are loved by Muslims. but it doesn't look that there is much difference on how they behaved to Genghis Khan. They even fought (or were near it) among themselves, despite that apparently they were all awesome nice person whom Mohamed (in the name of God, obviously) promised heaven.
Abu-Bekr almost fought with Ali, and only after Ali withdrawn from becoming a Caliph things became cool again. This is also the reason why Muslims got divided into Sunni and Shia. There were also tensions between Uthman and Ali, for the position of the third Caliph. If they were so good persons, then surely it wouldn't go to it.Can you please point me to the source to see if it's actually what we believe in? If it's not then they aren't following it are they?
Caliph Ali fought against Aisha (the wife of Mohamed and the person who is generally considered as how a Muslim woman should behave) in a battle that took the lives of around 20 thousands of people.
Abu Bekr himself started a war of conquest which in the end resulted with Arabs getting the majority of Byzantine Empire, in addition to lands as far as Spain or Egypt. How many people you think were killed on those wars?
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
Can you please point me to the source to see if it's actually what we believe in? If it's not then they aren't following it are they?
There are many different interpretations of Islam and there are many different ways in which Muslim observe or practice their faith. There is the glaring Sunni/Shia schism at the heart of the faith for a start. No one is saying that ISIS represents the majority position or that all Muslims should feel or be held responsible for what they do, anyone with sense would say the opposite. I am not sure how you can use the umbrella term 'we' and and imply that Muslims are a singular entity when there is so much diversity and variation in the observance of the faith, however.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
Actually it was a fight between Ali and Moaiwa Ibn Abu Sofian and it was after Abu Baker and Omar and Uthman diedAbu-Bekr almost fought with Ali, and only after Ali withdrawn from becoming a Caliph things became cool again. This is also the reason why Muslims got divided into Sunni and Shia. There were also tensions between Uthman and Ali, for the position of the third Caliph. If they were so good persons, then surely it wouldn't go to it.
Caliph Ali fought against Aisha (the wife of Mohamed and the person who is generally considered as how a Muslim woman should behave) in a battle that took the lives of around 20 thousands of people.
Abu Bekr himself started a war of conquest which in the end resulted with Arabs getting the majority of Byzantine Empire, in addition to lands as far as Spain or Egypt. How many people you think were killed on those wars?
Ali never fought with Aisha
The last part was true but we believe it was a war and it followed the rules of war made by Muhammad SAWS which I will say again not to fight someone unarmed, not to kill women, children, and elderly, not to kill plants even.
The first four caliphs are certainly loved by Sunni. Shia seems to dislike/hate the first three with the justification that they stole the caliphate from Ali (the fourth Caliph).There are many different interpretations of Islam and there are many different ways in which Muslim observe or practice their faith. There is the glaring Sunni/Shia schism at the heart of the faith for a start. No one is saying that ISIS represents the majority position or that all Muslims should feel or be held responsible for what they do, anyone with sense would say the opposite. I am not sure how you can use the umbrella term 'we' and and imply that Muslims are a singular entity when there is so much diversity and variation in the observance of the faith, however.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
When I say we I mean Sunni Muslims the follower of Muhammad SAWS only, not the follower of Ali or any Imam.There are many different interpretations of Islam and there are many different ways in which Muslim observe or practice their faith. There is the glaring Sunni/Shia schism at the heart of the faith for a start. No one is saying that ISIS represents the majority position or that all Muslims should feel or be held responsible for what they do, anyone with sense would say the opposite. I am not sure how you can use the umbrella term 'we' and and imply that Muslims are a singular entity when there is so much diversity and variation in the observance of the faith, however.
Look for the battle of Camel. Abu Sofian had nothing to do with it.Actually it was a fight between Ali and Moaiwa Ibn Abu Sofian and it was after Abu Baker and Omar and Uthman died
Ali never fought with Aisha
The last part was true but we believe it was a war and it followed the rules of war made by Muhammad SAWS which I will say again not to fight someone unarmed, not to kill women, children, and elderly, not to kill plants even.
Also, immediately after the assasination of Ali, there was a battle between the son of Ali and the son of Abu Sofian. Ali's son abdicated, and soon got assasinated too. Abi Sufyan became the new Caliph, returning pretty much the leadership in point 0.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
@Revan I'm 100% sure your source isn't the same one that Sunni Muslims follow, althoughfrom what I know Shias believe the things you said, but ISIS claim to be Sunnis and that what makes my point valid that they are twisting things to do what they want.
This has nothing to do with Sunni and Shia. As far as I am aware, these are historical facts.@Revan I'm 100% sure your source isn't the same one that Sunni Muslims follow, althoughfrom what I know Shias believe the things you said, but ISIS claim to be Sunnis and that what makes my point valid that they are twisting things to do what they want.
Ali fought Aisha in the battle of Camel. Near 20000 people lost their lives.
Ali fought Muawiyah (sixth Caliph) in the battle of Siffin (actually, a series of battles).
These are distinct events.
@2cents, can clarify it better.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
Sunnis believe that Aisha, Talha, and Alzubair Ibn Alawam went to Ali to help him fight those who killed Uthman and they didn't go to fight and when they met Ali no war happened and it was settled PEACEFULLY.Look for the battle of Camel. Abu Sofian had nothing to do with it.
Also, immediately after the assasination of Ali, there was a battle between the son of Ali and the son of Abu Sofian. Ali's son abdicated, and soon got assasinated too. Abi Sufyan became the new Caliph, returning pretty much the leadership in point 0.
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
@Revan again, what you're sayin is what Shia believe.
So, did the battle of Camel happened or not? I am not sure on what exactly each part believes (I read that some say that someone put the fire on some tents of Ali's army, which put the Ali's army to attack Aisha's army thinking that Aisha did so).Sunnis believe that Aisha, Talha, and Alzubair Ibn Alawam went to Ali to help him fight those who killed Uthman and they didn't go to fight and when they met Ali no war happened and it was settled PEACEFULLY.
But surely, the event of the battle is a historical fact, right?
syrian_scholes
Honorary Straw Hat
That what Sunni believe in, that Uthman killers attacked Ali and Aisha but the two never fought and were screaming at the fighters to stop fighting and that's not what Allah wants us to do, Talha died by mistake and Ali ran to him and hugged him and cried at his death also Alzubair died and then Ali got his followers to take Aisha to Mecca safely, nothing like 20 thousand killed according to the sunni story.So, did the battle of Camel happened or not? I am not sure on what exactly each part believes (I read that some say that someone put the fire on some tents of Ali's army, which put the Ali's army to attack Aisha's army thinking that Aisha did so).
But surely, the event of the battle is a historical fact, right?
NinjaZombie
Punched the air when Liverpool beat City
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,327
Your thread doesn't say "how peaceful is Islam in 2015" or the 21st century, or what have you, so if nothing else that clarification was needed.
Secondly, the acts of IS and other islamists are gruesome, no doubt, and born out of great hatred. However, our (the western world's) casual bombing of targets in the 3rd world and elsewhere is every bit as destructive, and the indifference with which we can outsource these things and not give a damn that blood is being spilt with our taxes backing them.
We've never been on the other side. I have a friend from Palestine, he's just gotten into the municipal council of my neighbouring municipality, and is a sharp and politically engaged fella. Once he got in there were a few pieces on him and his past... One of them outlined how he went to a friend's place for a barbecue, only to hear bombs go off in the distance. When he made it to the friend's place he found that it had been fecked up proper, and his friend was spread all over the place. Him and his mates go with plastic bags and pick up pieces of their friend. Hands, fingers and other stuff lying around, eyeballs in bushes... I can't imagine that. I can't imagine the other story mentioned in that piece, where he saw his uncle's charred body, clutching his infant daughter. Good Christians support Israeli atrocities, that don't seem to hit home like Paris did, does it?
These are just some of his stories, and he's one man, from one country. I, for one, can't fathom a life like that, having experienced that, and the hatred that could stir. It makes me object strongly to saying that it's something inherently to do with Islam, rather than a manifestation of it under dire conditions.
And this is coming from an atheist, who's ready to slate religion at the drop of a hat.
Now imagine growing up as a kid in that kind of environment, with people around you dying from bombs launched by another country, and imagine how fecked up you'll be as an adult. Hell, there are kids in America who shoot up their schools because they're rejected by girls and what not. Imagine growing up picking up pieces of your dead friends and relatives.
Blow each other up, convince each other's children that the others are trying to kill you. It's a vicious cycle.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
This has nothing to do with Sunni and Shia. As far as I am aware, these are historical facts.
Ali fought Aisha in the battle of Camel. Near 20000 people lost their lives.
Ali fought Muawiyah (sixth Caliph) in the battle of Siffin (actually, a series of battles).
These are distinct events.
@2cents, can clarify it better.
Away from the laptop for the weekend so can't reply in full. Would just say all this early history is contested so establishing what 'really' happened is impossible. If the broader point is to say that the early years of Islam, even the 'glorious' time of the Rashidun (3 of 4 murdered) upon which ISIS are claiming to model their caliphate, were full of strife (fitna) then that is undeniably true - it's the question of who is to blame that divides Muslims (look up the Kharijites - it's the term applied to ISIS today by their jihadist rivals in Syria).
Pretty much. That even at the 'glorius' time, it was far from the described paradise, and that there seems to have been clashes between the likes of those who are supposed to be role models for Muslims.Away from the laptop for the weekend so can't reply in full. Would just say all this early history is contested so establishing what 'really' happened is impossible. If the broader point is to say that the early years of Islam, even the 'glorious' time of the Rashidun (3 of 4 murdered) upon which ISIS are claiming to model their caliphate, were full of strife (fitna) then that is undeniably true - it's the question of who is to blame that divides Muslims (look up the Kharijites - it's the term applied to ISIS today by their jihadist rivals in Syria).
Momochiru
Full Member
Nowhere do I say that I blame all Muslims. I even mention that I have a family member who is Muslim, who I have known and loved all my life, so obviously I don't blame all Muslims. I think the majority are normal, peaceful people, who just want to take care of their families and get on with their life. However I question the often repeated mantra that the minority of radical Islamists is very small - the usual claims are that they are 0.1% or lower. For example @sun_tzu below claims that there are only 0.01% and citing as support a cnn article that estimates the total number of jihadists at 106,000. I read the article I find it completely flawed and very misleading:There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world in 2015. Several hundred thousand follow and act on a radicalised view of the faith while 1.599 billion of them live a peaceful existence. Blaming 22% of the worlds population for the actions of less than 1% of their population is some what silly.
- First this article is over an year old and the numbers there are not accurate any more. They estimate the ISIS fighters at 10,000, while the current estimates are 30,000-100,000 - between 3 and 10 times more. They estimate Boko Haram fighters at 300, while the current estimates are at 9,000 - 30 times more. So probably the number of the jihadists they count is at least two-three times more than the estimated 106,000.
- Second, even bigger problem is the fact that the article is written from USA point of view and is focussing only on groups that are threat to America. For example they discard two very big radical Islamic groups: Hezbollah and Hamas, because they "do not attack American targets". There is no mention of many other radical Islamic groups operating around the world - Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey, China, Albania, India, Mali, Chechnia and many other countries have local radicals, which the article completely ignores, because they are no threat to America. Only Hezbollah's fighters are estimated between 11,000 and 65,000; - adding all these will inflate the numbers several times more.
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
See above.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.
Last edited:
Momochiru
Full Member
Well said.Why do people keep saying this? Nobody is blaming moderate Muslims for the actions of extremists. That would be incredibly unfair and I haven't seen it happening, even in the most right-wing Islamophobic media. Yet we're still seeing these memes doing the rounds about how blaming all Muslims for jihadists is like blaming all Christians for KKK. That's a classic straw man argument. The Muslim people are not being blamed for what's happened, it's their religion that is under scrutiny (specifically its potential to be used to incite violence and intolerance) not the people themselves.
Momochiru
Full Member
I was replying to someone claiming that the problem is isolated only to Iraq and Syria where the Americans left a big mess and that most Muslim countries are not affected. This shows that the problem spread out much more and that even rich and peaceful Muslim countries have their fair share of radicals.What's your theory on this ?
this is a dangerous fallacy so many people have about atheism. yes, those people were killed because they believed in a god. but there is no "atheist doctrine" that says that atheists should persecute people for believing in a god. point to me an "atheist holy book" accepted by the atheist community that says non atheists should be killed.In the name of Atheism.
I have no problem classifying those mass murderers as atheists. we're not like those muslims and christians (again I am not referring to every muslim/christian) that have the need to separate extremists as not being a "true" believer of the religion because atheism has no doctrine associated with it. just don't step into the danger zone of claiming that there is an atheist doctrine that commands atheists to slaughter believers.
Last edited:
The present infighting between Sunni and Shia is a product of recent global events. Namely, the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the rise of Salafism. ISIS and Shia fundamentalists claim that progress can be gained through enforcing strict ideological and theological purity.
What is happening now is not the continuation of any 1400 year disagreement between Sunnis and Shias. This is driven instead by some agenda driven modern identity politics. These people have created false histories for their own political benefit. I have never read of any rifts between Ali (RA) and him serving under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Usman (RA).
PS: Those above want to go down the history route to highlight the split between Sunnis and Shia's will be better served looking at the battle of Kerbala in 680. Anyway, Millions of Sunnis' and Shias have and still live peacefully for centuries and perform the annual Hajj pilgrimage together and have done so for many centuries.
What is happening now is not the continuation of any 1400 year disagreement between Sunnis and Shias. This is driven instead by some agenda driven modern identity politics. These people have created false histories for their own political benefit. I have never read of any rifts between Ali (RA) and him serving under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Usman (RA).
PS: Those above want to go down the history route to highlight the split between Sunnis and Shia's will be better served looking at the battle of Kerbala in 680. Anyway, Millions of Sunnis' and Shias have and still live peacefully for centuries and perform the annual Hajj pilgrimage together and have done so for many centuries.
Last edited:
Share: