what does that mean?.(.no one understands what kashmiri pandit means)It would be a much better world if most of the Islamic extremist organisations were as "extremist" as the Hindu ones.
Also, Kashmiri Hindu, who the hell uses that term except, well, you know who
How peaceful is Islam?
- Thread starter Momochiru
- Start date
@UnitedinRed
@crappycraperson
@Akash
i guess im surrounded by like minded people who are hell bent on blaming islam for ISIS so at some point i have to give up this discussion or i'll be sitting here all day
i agree its healthy to have this conversation but the title itself sets the tone for a biased conversation (dont ask me why just see my previous posts).
buddhism is considered to be a peaceful religion but there is violence in its name as well. human beings are inherently violent and if it wasnt religion it would be something else that we would manipulate - like in the past communism and democracy were used to start wars. you put enough unemployed uneducated youths together and they will find a way to be violent. religion is just a tool to recruit these youths who have been ostracised by society and are living in ghettos with no future prospects.
ISIS is not islamic..it breaks as many rules of islam as it follows...does islam condone rape? im sure people have discussed the geo politcal reasons for the rise of ISIS yet i see people hell bent on pointing the finger at islam because thats the easy target..its much harder to comprehend who is funding whom and why.
if the west was so against islam the first country they should have attacked was sauid arabia. yet the US and france continue to collaborate with the sauds on military and nuclear technology. why? this war is not between islam and christianity or islam vs rest of the world. its not an ideological war. its politics.
@crappycraperson
@Akash
i guess im surrounded by like minded people who are hell bent on blaming islam for ISIS so at some point i have to give up this discussion or i'll be sitting here all day
i agree its healthy to have this conversation but the title itself sets the tone for a biased conversation (dont ask me why just see my previous posts).
buddhism is considered to be a peaceful religion but there is violence in its name as well. human beings are inherently violent and if it wasnt religion it would be something else that we would manipulate - like in the past communism and democracy were used to start wars. you put enough unemployed uneducated youths together and they will find a way to be violent. religion is just a tool to recruit these youths who have been ostracised by society and are living in ghettos with no future prospects.
ISIS is not islamic..it breaks as many rules of islam as it follows...does islam condone rape? im sure people have discussed the geo politcal reasons for the rise of ISIS yet i see people hell bent on pointing the finger at islam because thats the easy target..its much harder to comprehend who is funding whom and why.
if the west was so against islam the first country they should have attacked was sauid arabia. yet the US and france continue to collaborate with the sauds on military and nuclear technology. why? this war is not between islam and christianity or islam vs rest of the world. its not an ideological war. its politics.
Last edited:
A guy who shifted topic when Godhra train burning was mentioned and who thinks Savarkar's contribution was in ousting Muslims is clearly not very intelligent and cant talk about arguing properly.
As Bestie says if Muslim extremists were extremists as Hindu ones, world will be a peaceful place. But they are not and Islam as a religion is responsible for it.
Reading Times of India gives rise to fact twisters like you, so well done on one more irony.
I'd like to see a poll on this purely out of curiosity. Maybe people are scared to voice their true opinion. I think it's a shame that the general public are quite close minded but I can't blame some of them. There are people in my family, workplace and social groups who have very narrow minded views on Islam and Muslims. The tabloids dictate how a lot of people see the world which is a sad state of affairs imo. This forum is a wonderful place to interact with people who have more about them than reading the sun or daily mail and thinking "yep that's how it is". Unfortunately though some people don't want educating properly. It's not even a case of being stupid sometimes.
My own opinion is that Islam like any abrahamic religion will promote violence in some aspects if you're a fundamentalist. However interpretation is the key word which separates the likes of Al Qaeda from everyday Muslims who are law abiding citizens. Isis and other Islamic terrorist groups are more politically motivated imo. The British tabloids will say they are hellbent on destroying western ideology and values but I think it's more to do with western intervention in the middle east.
My own opinion is that Islam like any abrahamic religion will promote violence in some aspects if you're a fundamentalist. However interpretation is the key word which separates the likes of Al Qaeda from everyday Muslims who are law abiding citizens. Isis and other Islamic terrorist groups are more politically motivated imo. The British tabloids will say they are hellbent on destroying western ideology and values but I think it's more to do with western intervention in the middle east.
Have you actually read any of the posts I have written? I have not even argued one way or another in this thread.
- I have explained it to you that several folks have made the point that ISIS is primarily due to other factors than Islam. You seem to think everyone is pining it on Islam.
- I have explained why only Islam is being discussed right now. It is most relevant to Europeans right now. If you go back 40 pages in religion thread you will find similar posts against Christianity.
You need to go back and read actual discussion on ISIS in multiple threads instead of acting billy big bollocks who is fighting against the tide here. Asking folks not to even discuss influence of Islam on ISIS is just ridiculous.
Says who?
People are pointing fingers at Islam because it is an obvious contributing factor and it's dishonest to even try and deny this.
You're just pulling out strawman after strawman in your posts.
@shivab Comparing ISIS to Hindu or Buddhist extremism is a bit disingenuous. Both massacres in Gujarat and Myanmar were responses to local conflicts; neither have taken their fight abroad and neither quote their holy texts to justify or drive their actions. In contrast, ISIS, Al Shabab and Boko Haram specifically target non-Muslims - at home and abroad - and do so because they believe they're acting in complete accordance to the Quran.
You are like a broken record.
More than half of this thread was Christians vs atheists, with the latter pointing out the many obvious contradictions, hypocrisies and violent prejudices in the Bible. The fact that we are discussing whether Islam is inherently violent is because it is now the religion most linked to terrible atrocities around the world.
People here are very much aware that there were/are other terrorists from followers of other faith, but it shouldn't detract from the question at hand, which is entirely reasonable an issue to debate about.
And no one, or I hope anyone worth his salt, is blaming Islam solely for the existence of ISIS, but when the group itself proclaims its ideology, one that can be backed up by their scripture, maybe we can stop bury our heads in the sand and acknowledge that the religion was one of the factor for their creation? It's not very hard to grasp.
Shaming people by calling them bigots and play a game of 'whataboutery' are not ways to convince them. It just make you look petulant.
No. What ISIS are doing is unislamic according to scores of muslims as well and these muslims also quote scripture to say that ISIS is unislamic. of course that doesnt suit your rhetoric so you ignore that. if islam is such a violent religion then why arent all the 1 billion muslims violent? im not saying islam is perfect. im saying it has little to do with the rise of ISIS. the majority of people fighting in the middle east for ISIS are not devout muslims they are mercs for hire who dont give a shit about god or allah.
out of all the reasons that exist islam is probably the least relevant for the creation of ISIS and mentioning that over and over again (and titling a thread according to that reason) obfuscates the real reasons. is that so hard to understand?
maybe we should put this to a vote and see where people stand.
the comparison was merely to show that no matter which religion you belong to you can be violent, it depends on your nature rather than your religion.
hindus quoted their texts..gujarat isnt an isolated incident. its happened before gujarat many times and after as well though it hardly makes the news ( for reference read about muzzafranagar and watch the documentary final solution ,2003 which has video proof of texts being quoted during the riot and after to justify the riots)
its a fallacy that they are acting in accordance with Quran. the jehad is supposed to be an inner struggle not an outward one. you will find many muslims also quoting texts to discredit such organizations.
Has any nation (in recent times) ever prohibited a certain religion from being practised in their country? Would a country even be allowed to do so?
Shivab is just a broken record stuck on horrible logic.
Bahai'is are effectively banned from practicing their religion (which is not recognized by the state) in Iran.
(edit) you can make a case for Ahmadis in Pakistan being forbidden from practicing their faith as they would see it. Also I'm not 100% sure on the legal status of all non-Islamic religions in Saudi Arabia but I'm certain there are restrictions.
Last edited:
As more than one learned Muslims in this very thread has pointed out, there is no central authority in Islam. So what am I, or you, or even those, to decide if ISIS followers are or are not Muslims?
The 'if it's such a violent religion, why is the majority peaceful' is a fecking cop out. Believe it or not, people have morals, morals not derived from any scripture or organized religion, even though they try to claim authority on it. Most of us will go to work, get married, live our lives peacefully and frankly not give a shit to religion most of the time, believers or non-believers. It doesn't mean religions themselves aren't backward, hypocritical, false, a product of human invention and manipulation and ridden with prejudices that can fuel the baser instincts in us, violence being one of them. You say Islam is not the problem, then go ahead and live in the countries where Shariah laws apply and religious nutters run the government. It is a problem, and the fact that there are Islamophobic folks who by and large are right wing nationalist/racist nutters doesn't make it not so.
The thread's title is fine. It's a question that should be raised, and debated. After every attack, politicians are very quick to pay lip service separating the terrorists from Islam. It negates the need for Muslims to reform their religion and oust these animals. The public should be talking about this and while we shouldn't discriminate against people, no idea is above criticisms.
Yes. I could understand if he was just arguing that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS but he is actively arguing that there should not even be a debate about it.
No, it isn't a biased thread title as I've said to you already (your bizarre reasoning is apparently that the title allows some to argue that Islam is not a religion of peace) and even if it were, then so what?
In formal debates the two sides argue for or against a motion, for example 'Islam is a religion of peace'- a debate which actually took place on Intelligence Squared a few years ago. Imagine if Douglas Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali called off the event because they had to argue against the motion as it was framed.
If we cant decide that they arent muslims then who are we to decide that they are Muslims?
Many derive their morals from scriptures. Hindu scriptures for one have great morals. Who are you to say people dont?
You are taking this debate away from ISIS and into practices of Islam. Islam needs to be criticised but clearly this debate is not being conducted in isolation but in context of the rise of ISIS. And in that case I disagree that Islam needs to be the focal point of that debate.
That's what I'm sayingYes. I could understand if he was just arguing that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS but he is actively arguing that there should not even be a debate about it.
Ad hominem responses are going to get us nowhere.
It's not up to non-Muslims to judge either way. If someone identifies as a Muslim then that should be enough, whether they interpret it in a peaceful or violent manner.
First of all, that's not an ad hominem. Second, many people have already tried responding to you in good faith and it's like you don't even read the posts you quote.
If majorty if the Muslims (who are peaceful) are criticising ISIS and calling them unislamic then I would take their word for it. there are rogue elements in every school of thought. Its up to the people who belong to that school if thought to distance themselves from these elements and that's precisely what they are doing.
Well, that's just stupid. What if ISIS say all the other muslims are unislamic sighting passages in the Quran? Are you going to then call every peaceful muslim unislamic?
You are the one insisting they are not. Why should the burden of proof be on me? Their ideology derives from Wahhabism and can be backed up by scripture. They are committing atrocities on that belief. Do you think Westerners joining their ranks is just for shit and giggles? Religious fervor plays a part. They are just as Muslim-ish are the normal Muslims, in the sense that they are happy to cherry pick what they want and interpret it whatever way they may, it's just unfortunate that the parts they cherry pick are the worst. As for not keeping with guidance, I've met plenty of Muslims who avoid pork but drink by the bucketfuls, are they or are they not Muslims?
I'm not taking anything away. A very big part of the creation of ISIS, or even AQ for that matter, has to do with Western influence in the region and that conflict can be traced back to the Crusades. But a big part of that is also the religious extremism that was fomented by Islamic puritanical movement, funded by the Saudis and Qataris, and that ideology provides the inspiration and justification for radicalized Muslims all over the world to join their material, offensive jihad.
No you are not. Your initial and main argument has been that this thread should not even exist since it is Islamophobic to link Islam with ISIS or any other terrorist outfits. That was the only thing I took exception to as did may others. Before that we already have several folks arguing that ISIS had no basis in Islam.
Go back and check my posts. I Wrote - if human beings are violent and religion is written by humans then of course it will have violence in it as well.
But the has little to do with Isis....blah blah.
I'm arguing from the stand point of ISIS and this thread title IMO gives credence to the belief that Islam is the basis for ISIS.
Well al-Azhar university in Cairo, generally regarded as the most prestigious centre of Sunni Islam in the world, has refused to declare ISIS to be non-Muslims, arguing that sinning does not necessarily make a believer an apostate - http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/azhar-egypt-radicals-islamic-state-apostates.html#
This does not of course mean the Azhar ulema support ISIS, far from it.
In any case this thread isn't about ISIS directly, we have a massive thread for that which you obviously haven't bothered to look through. ISIS are hardly the only group Islamic group today or in history who believe that Islam sanctions violence against certain groups in certain situations.
For example, your previous assertion that jihad is an inner, not an outer, struggle is something which many prominent Muslims throughout history would disagree with. Most would argue that jihad includes both struggles, with greater or less emphasis to be given one or the other depending on circumstances. Muslim states and empires throughout history have interpreted the doctrine of jihad in an offensive sense in order to justify imperial expansion, something modern-day jihadi groups accept with the caveat that only the caliph can sanction it (they therefore frame their actions as defensive). What ISIS have done is grant themselves that authority by declaring their caliphate.
The question in the thread title is legitimate but flawed, since 'Islam' is not an individual or an institution but a collection of ideas which its billion+ adherents can't agree about much beyond the requirement of the shahada. The answer is some Islams are 100% peaceful, some are not, and most lie in various degrees in between.
well im not alone. the muslims on this thread and the muslims living in the civilized world are insisting that ISIS is unislamic so yes the burden of proof has to be with you. no?
westerners who are joining their ranks are living in ghettos. they arent devout muslims they are misguided youths with no future prospects and get no respect from society. they have to pitied rather than despised. the only way to solving this problem is integration not further ostracization of these youths by people with closed minds.
as you say yourself a very big part of the reason behind the rise of IS is western influence. you are also right about rogue elements in saudi arabia and qatar who are funding schools for spreading wahhabism and this must be stopped. but that still doesnt have anything to do with the rise of IS. The children being trained in this school will one day end up fighting for or running IS but thats definitely not responsible for its creation nor for its sustenance so far.
I think it is you who has not ready any other posts. That is clear by now. You stormed into the thread labeling a bunch of people and this thread Islamophobic. Before that plenty of people were already making the point that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. You explicitly asked this thread and ergo that debate to be shut down.
Read 2cents's post above.
Not all are living in ghettos. There are instances already reported in the news of well off middle class men joining them. To what extent it's due to identity crisis, or appetite for the religious appeal of ISIS, or a thirst for destruction is up for debate, but you can't blanket deny the influence of Islam. I also didn't say anything about them being devout, but people going through zealous period in their lives aren't uncommon.
And how does Islamic extremism have nothing to do with ISIS? It's easy, and lazy to dismiss them as mere 'terrorists'. Fact of the matter is that they, alongside AQ, or just about every other extremist terrorist organizations made up of Muslims are pushing an agenda, with their twisted theological ideology at the center of it. The acts of terror they are committing are a means to that end, not an end in itself. You have made a lot of assertions without providing reason for them, and outright dismissing what people say that you doesn't agree with. It doesn't make for a good debate.
This thread spawned because of ISIS and the events in Paris has it not? or have people suddenly developed an interest in studying islam. There was a thread on what to do with ISIS but nothing about the reasons why ISIS exists
Jihad being an inner struggle is something that many prominent muslims including scholars of islamic studies today will agree with. yes jihad was a pretext to annex regions and spread islam but thats a thing of the past and the majority of the muslims today agree that jihad has a deeper non-violent meaning. somehow we ignore those voices and focus on the interpretation of the violent few.
As you put it correctly some schools of thought in islam are violent and some are not. But that idea still lies further away from the rise of ISIS as it did before. The reason for the rise of ISIS is deeply rooted in the infighting between different sects of islam (mainly shia vs sunni) for control of the middle east and the power vaccum created by the west. the rise of ISIS therefore has little to do with islam or jihad and everything to do with power money and control. jihad and islam are just being used to legitimize their actions.
You clearly haven't looked in the ISIS thread, you really think we've been talking about it since June 2014 without considering the reasons it exists? Every point made regarding ISIS in this thread has been previously made in that one about a dozen times.
As for the rest of your post, well I'm just happy you've stopped trying to shut the thread down and are engaging in the debate. That's progress. I disagree with some and agree with some of what you've said about ISIS but since I've gone through it all a dozen times already I'll not bother repeating myself again.
Actually, he's right. It's pretty well documented what the greatest form of Jihad is, and there numerous Hadith and inferences from Quranic verses which support this. The greatest form of Jihad has been the to strive against your nafs (ego) I.e. Your base desires. This is what Ramadhan is centred on. On top of that, other hadiths show how important other forms of jihad are.
For example, a man came to the Prophet (SAWS) and asked to fight for Islam (outer jihad). The Prophet (SAWS) asked him if his parents (or mother) were still alive and he said yes. The Prophet (SAWS) then said he should go back and look after his parents as this is better for him.
These are all mutawatir Hadith so, they are the strongest chain of narrations. Anyway, the best form of jihad has always, always been the inner form.
fair enough. im tired of this myself. its both hard work and dangerous to work with a lentivirus on a sunday and argue over ISIS and islam at the same time. i will look over the isis thread as you mentioned
I've never denied any of that. What I've said is that a tradition of militant jihad, always justifiable in a defensive sense and sometimes in an offensive sense, has existed alongside the more contemplative spiritual tradition throughout Islamic history, and that modern-day jihadists draw upon this tradition to justify their actions.
The qaran is the very word of god is it not?
So, according to Islam, Allah wouldn't take too kindly too mere men deciding the definition of his word when it suits.
Why do you want to shut the debate down? Genuinely I would like to know your reasons.
What?
The word jihad isn't open to interpretation. It has a pretty clear cut definition.
Do married Muslims have to abstain from sex during Ramadan?
I wouldn't class the consumption of food and water as coming from desire though, they are fundamental needs for survival.
Nothing in the qaran is clear cut. It's not even in its chronological order and highly contradictive, so don't claim otherwise. You interpret it to be as you understand it. This doesn't make it clear cut.
Are peaceful Muslims in denial about their religion?
Adam Walker
The Koran has violent passages, but it also has others that explicitly tells us how to interpret them — and it's bad news for critics of Islam.
Isis has sharpened many people's sense of paranoia towards Islam. The majority of Muslims have a peaceful reading of the Koran, but as Isis commits more and more atrocities, the argument that the Koran equally invites a violent interpretation of its teachings has begun to gain ground.
A quick internet search that throws up certain passages which, read at face value, could prove these suspicions correct. For example, critics of Islam often cite verses such as: "fight such of the disbelievers as are near to you"; or to "kill the idolaters wherever you find them". Passages such as these leave an impartial observer wondering — is Islam simply a matter of interpretation? Is the line between a peaceful Muslim and a terrorist simply a matter of which verses you follow and which you ignore?
No, is the emphatic answer of the Koran. Whether Islam is peaceful or extreme is not just a matter of interpretation, and for the simple reason that the Koran tells you exactly how to interpret it. Once you’ve read how it works, you’ll understand exactly why the verses above aren’t actually calling for "Death to the West", but are in fact completely reasonable in their context. If that sounds far-fetched, then keep reading.
The Koran clearly states that it contains two types of verses: context-independent verses, and context-dependent verses. Context-independent verses are unambiguous and timeless principles which can be applied in every situation. Context-dependent verses are those that are specific to particular situations, and can’t be read in isolation. The Koran then goes on to condemn those who cherry-pick verses to suit their own selfish ends, and tells its reader to take all the verses together before coming to any conclusions.
"Peace" is one of the literal meanings of Islam, and its ultimate aim. And as such, it explicitly teaches that there is no compulsion in matters of faith. Regarding war, it teaches that Muslims are only ever allowed permitted to fight defensively, stating that "permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged – and Allah indeed has the power to help them".
The verses that are often quoted by critics are, like those at the beginning, cherry-picked context-dependent verses. They were only applicable at a time when war had been openly declared against Muslims because of their faith. They were being driven out of their homes and routinely assassinated. "Fight them until there is no persecution and religion is freely professed for Allah", says the Koran. But if they stop oppressing you, it warns, then remember that "no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors". Verses such as these mention fighting "disbelievers" because the division of the two sides was one of belief – non-Muslims who were the aggressors, and Muslims, who were being killed for their acceptance of Islam.
As for how Muslims should co-exist with peaceful people of other beliefs, the Koran couldn’t be clearer: "Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes". For everyone else, it is taught that you should be kind and act fairly towards them.
So just to be clear: Islam is not simply a matter of interpretation, because the Koran itself tells us how to interpret it. Any other interpretation is either willfully dishonest or just plain ignorant.
Once this has been accepted, then can we recognise the evil of Isis without letting them divide us? It is unity across diversity that is the best way to defeat them. Repel evil with that which is best, says the Koran (or: don't stoop to their level). And this is something that I hope we can all agree on, regardless of our religious beliefs.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-in-denial-about-their-religion-10084960.html
Adam Walker
The Koran has violent passages, but it also has others that explicitly tells us how to interpret them — and it's bad news for critics of Islam.
Isis has sharpened many people's sense of paranoia towards Islam. The majority of Muslims have a peaceful reading of the Koran, but as Isis commits more and more atrocities, the argument that the Koran equally invites a violent interpretation of its teachings has begun to gain ground.
A quick internet search that throws up certain passages which, read at face value, could prove these suspicions correct. For example, critics of Islam often cite verses such as: "fight such of the disbelievers as are near to you"; or to "kill the idolaters wherever you find them". Passages such as these leave an impartial observer wondering — is Islam simply a matter of interpretation? Is the line between a peaceful Muslim and a terrorist simply a matter of which verses you follow and which you ignore?
No, is the emphatic answer of the Koran. Whether Islam is peaceful or extreme is not just a matter of interpretation, and for the simple reason that the Koran tells you exactly how to interpret it. Once you’ve read how it works, you’ll understand exactly why the verses above aren’t actually calling for "Death to the West", but are in fact completely reasonable in their context. If that sounds far-fetched, then keep reading.
The Koran clearly states that it contains two types of verses: context-independent verses, and context-dependent verses. Context-independent verses are unambiguous and timeless principles which can be applied in every situation. Context-dependent verses are those that are specific to particular situations, and can’t be read in isolation. The Koran then goes on to condemn those who cherry-pick verses to suit their own selfish ends, and tells its reader to take all the verses together before coming to any conclusions.
"Peace" is one of the literal meanings of Islam, and its ultimate aim. And as such, it explicitly teaches that there is no compulsion in matters of faith. Regarding war, it teaches that Muslims are only ever allowed permitted to fight defensively, stating that "permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged – and Allah indeed has the power to help them".
The verses that are often quoted by critics are, like those at the beginning, cherry-picked context-dependent verses. They were only applicable at a time when war had been openly declared against Muslims because of their faith. They were being driven out of their homes and routinely assassinated. "Fight them until there is no persecution and religion is freely professed for Allah", says the Koran. But if they stop oppressing you, it warns, then remember that "no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors". Verses such as these mention fighting "disbelievers" because the division of the two sides was one of belief – non-Muslims who were the aggressors, and Muslims, who were being killed for their acceptance of Islam.
As for how Muslims should co-exist with peaceful people of other beliefs, the Koran couldn’t be clearer: "Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes". For everyone else, it is taught that you should be kind and act fairly towards them.
So just to be clear: Islam is not simply a matter of interpretation, because the Koran itself tells us how to interpret it. Any other interpretation is either willfully dishonest or just plain ignorant.
Once this has been accepted, then can we recognise the evil of Isis without letting them divide us? It is unity across diversity that is the best way to defeat them. Repel evil with that which is best, says the Koran (or: don't stoop to their level). And this is something that I hope we can all agree on, regardless of our religious beliefs.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-in-denial-about-their-religion-10084960.html