I don't really see how Islam can claim to be peaceful when so many extremists are trained by a massively funded religious system that comes from the nation at the center of the religion. A nation that more and more is coming to resemble the more extreme elements of Islam that many claim don't really represent the religion as a whole. If these religions are really about controlling people here, which I think is the case, then it shouldn't be surprising that violence and intolerance are an integral part of them I think.What nation are you talking about here? There is no center of Islam. Within a generation of the Koran being written there was no center. You need to start defining terms. What does "religion of peace" mean? I say a religion is defined by the people who are currently practicing it and claiming it. There is too much diversity within that to apply any general statement to the 3 major monotheisms. So, you have people arguing about world views. Religion is different than secular government in that it uses ancient scripture and holy edicts as if they are evidence. It's a lot harder to do that in any kind of pluralistic democracy. You didn't really do my thought experiment. Take your last response to me and replace USA with any religion you name. We have good leaders who pop up now and then and plenty of bad ones. We use military action to enforce peace and spread democracy. I'm not saying military is wrong, I'm saying you can't look at a history of military action from a culture and then make broad statements about their ideology or the thoughts of the people currently alive. You have to examine the details of how those actions were determined, funded, carried out and then reviewed. i.e., what do most Americans alive today think about the Japanese interment camps. I was referring to Saudi Arabia as the two links I posted covered in detail. Islam arose from the Arabian Peninsula and it still remains the center of the religion. When Muslims worship they face Mecca and they're expected to make at least one pilgrimage there in their lives. The extreme fundamentalist sect that seems to be driving most of the current violence - Wahhabism - and conflict within the Islamic world is also based there and if you read the blog piece as much as $100 billion has been spent worldwide advancing the kind of Islamic fundamentalism that seems to spur the kind of extreme behavior we're now seeing on a daily basis. It compares that to the $7 billion that was spent during the time of the Soviet Union to advance communism worldwide. I don't really understand what your thought experiment is. Religions and nations don't seek to fulfill the same functions and as they claim to represent an authority and morality that extends beyond the reach of any other human created organizations then I think religions must be looked at in those terms. The reality now seems to be that some religious organizations seek power with no real responsibility. The US for instance may evoke God in some of it's ceremonies, but the US wasn't created to advance the will of god as expressed by a small group or even one man as with some religions today. With Islam we're looking at the ideas and personality of one man that has been codified and then to a large degree imposed worldwide with greater and lesser degrees of violence involved. Show me where peace plays a role in that in other than imposing a strict control once conquest is achieved. There's no question that Islam has been successful, I find it highly doubtful that has been because it's a religion of "peace".
I don't really see how Islam can claim to be peaceful when so many extremists are trained by a massively funded religious system that comes from the nation at the center of the religion. A nation that more and more is coming to resemble the more extreme elements of Islam that many claim don't really represent the religion as a whole. If these religions are really about controlling people here, which I think is the case, then it shouldn't be surprising that violence and intolerance are an integral part of them I think.What nation are you talking about here? There is no center of Islam. Within a generation of the Koran being written there was no center. You need to start defining terms. What does "religion of peace" mean? I say a religion is defined by the people who are currently practicing it and claiming it. There is too much diversity within that to apply any general statement to the 3 major monotheisms. So, you have people arguing about world views. Religion is different than secular government in that it uses ancient scripture and holy edicts as if they are evidence. It's a lot harder to do that in any kind of pluralistic democracy. You didn't really do my thought experiment. Take your last response to me and replace USA with any religion you name. We have good leaders who pop up now and then and plenty of bad ones. We use military action to enforce peace and spread democracy. I'm not saying military is wrong, I'm saying you can't look at a history of military action from a culture and then make broad statements about their ideology or the thoughts of the people currently alive. You have to examine the details of how those actions were determined, funded, carried out and then reviewed. i.e., what do most Americans alive today think about the Japanese interment camps. I was referring to Saudi Arabia as the two links I posted covered in detail. Islam arose from the Arabian Peninsula and it still remains the center of the religion. When Muslims worship they face Mecca and they're expected to make at least one pilgrimage there in their lives. The extreme fundamentalist sect that seems to be driving most of the current violence - Wahhabism - and conflict within the Islamic world is also based there and if you read the blog piece as much as $100 billion has been spent worldwide advancing the kind of Islamic fundamentalism that seems to spur the kind of extreme behavior we're now seeing on a daily basis. It compares that to the $7 billion that was spent during the time of the Soviet Union to advance communism worldwide. I don't really understand what your thought experiment is. Religions and nations don't seek to fulfill the same functions and as they claim to represent an authority and morality that extends beyond the reach of any other human created organizations then I think religions must be looked at in those terms. The reality now seems to be that some religious organizations seek power with no real responsibility. The US for instance may evoke God in some of it's ceremonies, but the US wasn't created to advance the will of god as expressed by a small group or even one man as with some religions today. With Islam we're looking at the ideas and personality of one man that has been codified and then to a large degree imposed worldwide with greater and lesser degrees of violence involved. Show me where peace plays a role in that in other than imposing a strict control once conquest is achieved. There's no question that Islam has been successful, I find it highly doubtful that has been because it's a religion of "peace". I think that you, each, have made mostly correct points, here.
I was referring to Saudi Arabia as the two links I posted covered in detail. Islam arose from the Arabian Peninsula and it still remains the center of the religion. When Muslims worship they face Mecca and they're expected to make at least one pilgrimage there in their lives. The extreme fundamentalist sect that seems to be driving most of the current violence - Wahhabism - and conflict within the Islamic world is also based there and if you read the blog piece as much as $100 billion has been spent worldwide advancing the kind of Islamic fundamentalism that seems to spur the kind of extreme behavior we're now seeing on a daily basis. It compares that to the $7 billion that was spent during the time of the Soviet Union to advance communism worldwide. I don't really understand what your thought experiment is. Religions and nations don't seek to fulfill the same functions and as they claim to represent an authority and morality that extends beyond the reach of any other human created organizations then I think religions must be looked at in those terms. The reality now seems to be that some religious organizations seek power with no real responsibility. The US for instance may evoke God in some of it's ceremonies, but the US wasn't created to advance the will of god as expressed by a small group or even one man as with some religions today. With Islam we're looking at the ideas and personality of one man that has been codified and then to a large degree imposed worldwide with greater and lesser degrees of violence involved. Show me where peace plays a role in that in other than imposing a strict control once conquest is achieved. There's no question that Islam has been successful, I find it highly doubtful that has been because it's a religion of "peace".The thought experiment was to challenge yourself with this idea that correlation of violence and ideology occurs almost everywhere. The rare non-violent ideologies like Quarkerism or Jainism can only exist within a nation with a military. But it doesn't seem we're agreeing there. Mecca, the money, and Wahhabism are just more of the same. A Muslim in Ohio or Indonesia is not going to express Wahhabism. I don't think we can do much here if you don't define your terms. There are mosques all over the world that are existing peacefully next to other religions and businesses. You are assuming one version of Islam, an extreme version, and saying that is the only Islam.
The thought experiment was to challenge yourself with this idea that correlation of violence and ideology occurs almost everywhere. The rare non-violent ideologies like Quarkerism or Jainism can only exist within a nation with a military. But it doesn't seem we're agreeing there. Mecca, the money, and Wahhabism are just more of the same. A Muslim in Ohio or Indonesia is not going to express Wahhabism. I don't think we can do much here if you don't define your terms. There are mosques all over the world that are existing peacefully next to other religions and businesses. You are assuming one version of Islam, an extreme version, and saying that is the only Islam.I'm aware of the presence of violence as part of the human experience seemingly at all levels, my point was that religions seek to place themselves above the human level and claim divine guidance and authority. To some degree they also demand that they not be questioned with different degrees of punishment for doing so. My point has also been that, despite billing Abrahamic religions anyway seem to be much more about the application of power here on Earth than any true investigation of any sort of spiritual transcendence. Which also calls into question claims of a peaceful nature as it often requires the use of force for the application of power. I think you're also confusing individuals with the organization. I'm not saying all Muslims are violent, I'm saying that Islam - and Christianity - are structured so they can be what ever they need to be to advance the interests of the organization whatever the circumstances. Which once again represents systems set up for power here on Earth with little or nothing to do with any sort of actual transcendence which they supposedly represent. If Muslims can collectively wage holy war whenever their arbitrary code is violated that hardly seems peaceful to me and it should be obvious by now that Islam is set up to do exactly that. React violently whenever confronted with any genuine challenge to the growth of Islam. I also question your belief that Wahhabism's influence is limited to the Middle East when $100 billion dollars from wealthy petro-states have been spent over the last few decades to expand it worldwide. This idea of a peaceful Islam seems quite dangerous in the face of what is rapidly becoming a very violent global war. With people citing Islam as the justification for the murder of civilians in ever growing numbers.
You are becoming increasingly incoherent. You are getting to where you can say anything about anything. Lots of things are “structured so they can be what ever they need to be". And, I don’t really care if they are living up to any divine claims, since those are fake and just as malleable as their texts. Saying “Muslims can collectively wage holy war whenever their arbitrary code is violated" is a nonsense statement. Anyone can wage war any time they want. And what do you mean by “collectively"? You throw a new word into this conversation every post and still have not offered basic definitions. There is no universal agreement among Muslims that they can do that given any particular set of circumstances. Do you know that Al Qeada doesn’t agree with ISIS? What does that tell you?
Before this gets any more off the rails, I never claimed Islam was “peaceful". I said there are a lot of Muslims living peacefully. But I agree, looking strictly at the texts, Islam is more geared toward violence. What’s dangerous to me is prejudice. You say I’m confusing individuals with organizations. I don’t see where I did that. I do see where you are trying to gloss over these general, collective Islamic tendencies, but you end with “people citing Islam as the justification for murder". Sounds like you think you can judge an individual Muslim to me.
You are becoming increasingly incoherent. You are getting to where you can say anything about anything. Lots of things are “structured so they can be what ever they need to be". And, I don't really care if they are living up to any divine claims, since those are fake and just as malleable as their texts. Saying “Muslims can collectively wage holy war whenever their arbitrary code is violated" is a nonsense statement. Anyone can wage war any time they want. And what do you mean by “collectively"? You throw a new word into this conversation every post and still have not offered basic definitions. There is no universal agreement among Muslims that they can do that given any particular set of circumstances. Do you know that Al Qeada doesn't agree with ISIS? What does that tell you? Before this gets any more off the rails, I never claimed Islam was “peaceful". I said there are a lot of Muslims living peacefully. But I agree, looking strictly at the texts, Islam is more geared toward violence. What's dangerous to me is prejudice. You say I'm confusing individuals with organizations. I don't see where I did that. I do see where you are trying to gloss over these general, collective Islamic tendencies, but you end with “people citing Islam as the justification for murder". Sounds like you think you can judge an individual Muslim to me.Sorry not interested in ad hominen at all, if you can't speak to my points which as far as I'm concerned are as specific as needs to be to discuss this topic then there's no point in continuing it with you.
Sorry not interested in ad hominen at all, if you can't speak to my points which as far as I'm concerned are as specific as needs to be to discuss this topic then there's no point in continuing it with you.I believe that's pretty much what I've been saying to you. Except I didn't accuse you of doing something you didn't do. "Incoherent" is not an ad hominen.
Sorry not interested in ad hominen at all, if you can't speak to my points which as far as I'm concerned are as specific as needs to be to discuss this topic then there's no point in continuing it with you.I believe that's pretty much what I've been saying to you. Except I didn't accuse you of doing something you didn't do. "Incoherent" is not an ad hominen. That's exactly what it is, you were speaking "to the man" not the ideas being presented.
You are becoming increasingly incoherent. You are getting to where you can say anything about anything.Doing this ends up making the person you're having a discussion with defend themselves and not the points they're attempting to put across. Which effectively ends the discussion...
Doing this ends up making the person you're having a discussion with defend themselves and not the points they're attempting to put across. Which effectively ends the discussion...Or you could attempt to clarify your position and define your terms. In other words, grow some hair. I started a discussion in the philosophy thread that puts this question in a different light. Join me there if you like. In case I'm not clear enough, here's my definition of a religion of peace: A tradition that uses metaphor and allegory to describe the human condition and offer comment on current trends, particularly those involving compassion, relationship to the environment and values. They may also have rituals and education to help understand their tradition or to guide people through life events like birth, marriage and death. In practice, this religion would not be involved directly in politics since politics almost always involves military and police action.
Doing this ends up making the person you're having a discussion with defend themselves and not the points they're attempting to put across. Which effectively ends the discussion...Or you could attempt to clarify your position and define your terms. In other words, grow some hair. I started a discussion in the philosophy thread that puts this question in a different light. Join me there if you like. In case I'm not clear enough, here's my definition of a religion of peace: A tradition that uses metaphor and allegory to describe the human condition and offer comment on current trends, particularly those involving compassion, relationship to the environment and values. They may also have rituals and education to help understand their tradition or to guide people through life events like birth, marriage and death. In practice, this religion would not be involved directly in politics since politics almost always involves military and police action. It has nothing to do with being tough which is what I take from "grow some hair". It has to do with it being pointless to try and have an objective discussion about anything when any side of the debate makes it personal. It stops being objective and becomes entirely subjective, the fact that everyone has an opinion doesn't add anything meaningful to a discussion as far as I'm concerned. What does add to an objective discussion is facts presented in as objective a manner as possible.
It has nothing to do with being tough which is what I take from "grow some hair". It has to do with it being pointless to try and have an objective discussion about anything when any side of the debate makes it personal. It stops being objective and becomes entirely subjective, the fact that everyone has an opinion doesn't add anything meaningful to a discussion as far as I'm concerned. What does add to an objective discussion is facts presented in as objective a manner as possible.toughness, or just maturity, take it however you like. If you think objective facts are so important, present some. You've presented isolated data, ignoring the larger picture. I can find violence and justification for violence in lots of places, but I don't use that data to make claims about a population that covers such wide variety as Muslims do. But I'm not even sure what you're trying to do anymore. You've spent the last three posts complaining about my tone. Move on already. I'm not the only member of this forum and I get bored with people like you pretty fast.
It has nothing to do with being tough which is what I take from "grow some hair". It has to do with it being pointless to try and have an objective discussion about anything when any side of the debate makes it personal. It stops being objective and becomes entirely subjective, the fact that everyone has an opinion doesn't add anything meaningful to a discussion as far as I'm concerned. What does add to an objective discussion is facts presented in as objective a manner as possible.toughness, or just maturity, take it however you like. If you think objective facts are so important, present some. You've presented isolated data, ignoring the larger picture. I can find violence and justification for violence in lots of places, but I don't use that data to make claims about a population that covers such wide variety as Muslims do. But I'm not even sure what you're trying to do anymore. You've spent the last three posts complaining about my tone. Move on already. I'm not the only member of this forum and I get bored with people like you pretty fast. I've presented the relevant facts to this subject. - Going back to its roots Islam has been about the application of violence to advance itself. First with the conquest of the Arabian tribes by Muhammed to bring about the Muslim "peace". And then after his death the explosion of Islam out of Arabian peninsula by Muslim "holy" warriors under Abu Bakr which within a few generations had created a Muslim dominated empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They can write anything they want about Islam, it doesn't change the reality that from its inception the use of Jihad was crucial to the advancement of Islam. There are two main sects of Islam and in many Islamic nations you are born a Muslim whether you want to be or not. Just ask Salman Rushdie what the consequences of merely questioning Islam are, or Theo van Gogh - you'll need a medium for that - or very many others. I see no evidence of any great variety of thought in the Muslim world, just more or less fanatical adherence to a code that is based on militarism from its earliest days. As I've said already the "peace" presented by Islam comes after conquest not before. And considering the events that are currently playing out in the world right now I don't find this subject boring in the slightest.
Muhammad was a warrior, not a man of peace, I think the religion he founded still reflects this.
Muhammad’s rise to power was a textbook example of a successful insurgency, in all likelihood the first such example in antiquity. The West has been accustomed to thinking of the Arab conquests that followed Muhammad in purely conventional military terms. But the armies that achieved those conquests did not exist in Arabia before Muhammad. It was Muhammad’s successful unconventional guerrilla operations, his successful insurgency, that brought those armies into existence. The later Arab conquests, as regards both strategic concept and the new armies as instruments of military method, were the consequences of Muhammad’s prior military success as the leader of an insurgency. This aspect of Muhammad’s military life as a guerrilla insurgent is likely to strike the reader as curious. But if the means and methods used by modern military analysts to characterize insurgency warfare are employed as categories of analysis, it is clear that Muhammad’s campaign to spread Islam throughout Arabia fulfilled all of the criteria. One requirement for an insurgency is a determined leader whose followers regard him as special in some way and worthy of their following him. In Muhammad’s case his own charismatic personality was enhanced by his deeply held belief that he was God’s Messenger, and that to follow Muhammad was to obey the dictates of God himself.Sound familiar?
Thanks for the summary of your cherry picked data. You ignore that they conquered the land that had previously been conquered by Rome, then they fought over it with the Christians once Christians became the Holy Roman Empire. So, they were just one of a string of empires playing their war games. At least you qualified you’re next bit of cherry picking as cherry picking when you said, “in many Islamic nations”. So, I believe I’ve said this here, and much more clearly in the philosophy thread I started, the question of any religion being a “religion of peace” is just not a very well formed question. I’m not arguing for that proposal, but I wouldn’t want to argue against it either.
No religion or government is “of peace”, they are self serving entities designed to get things for their people, usually by taking them from others. Islam stands out as slightly more warring than others, but much of that comes from their tribal past and being situated in the middle of historically significant trade routes. And then we found out they have oil!
If you are going to generalize about Islam or Muslims, you need to explain things like Indonesia.]
Thanks for the summary of your cherry picked data. You ignore that they conquered the land that had previously been conquered by Rome, then they fought over it with the Christians once Christians became the Holy Roman Empire. So, they were just one of a string of empires playing their war games. At least you qualified you're next bit of cherry picking as cherry picking when you said, "in many Islamic nations". So, I believe I've said this here, and much more clearly in the philosophy thread I started, the question of any religion being a "religion of peace" is just not a very well formed question. I'm not arguing for that proposal, but I wouldn't want to argue against it either. No religion or government is "of peace", they are self serving entities designed to get things for their people, usually by taking them from others. Islam stands out as slightly more warring than others, but much of that comes from their tribal past and being situated in the middle of historically significant trade routes. And then we found out they have oil! If you are going to generalize about Islam or Muslims, you need to explain things like Indonesia.]See above.
Muhammad’s rise to power was a textbook example of a successful insurgency, in all likelihood the first such example in antiquity. The West has been accustomed to thinking of the Arab conquests that followed Muhammad in purely conventional military terms. But the armies that achieved those conquests did not exist in Arabia before Muhammad. It was Muhammad’s successful unconventional guerrilla operations, his successful insurgency, that brought those armies into existence. The later Arab conquests, as regards both strategic concept and the new armies as instruments of military method, were the consequences of Muhammad’s prior military success as the leader of an insurgency. This aspect of Muhammad’s military life as a guerrilla insurgent is likely to strike the reader as curious. But if the means and methods used by modern military analysts to characterize insurgency warfare are employed as categories of analysis, it is clear that Muhammad’s campaign to spread Islam throughout Arabia fulfilled all of the criteria. One requirement for an insurgency is a determined leader whose followers regard him as special in some way and worthy of their following him. In Muhammad’s case his own charismatic personality was enhanced by his deeply held belief that he was God’s Messenger, and that to follow Muhammad was to obey the dictates of God himself.Show me another major religion that was based on radical religious insurgency lead by a warrior from its start. It reads as a guerilla movement to me and not a genuine spiritual movement. And it's not like this behavior has stopped, if anything it is accelerating.
We see hundreds of different religions and beliefs all over the world. But main religions are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. We do not hear from Christians or Hindus or Buddhists ever that , either Christianity or Hinduism or Buddism is a religion of peace. Why only Muslims need to propagate saying : Islam is a religion of peace ? Why such advertisement ? Does advertisement prove any religion really peaceful ?Back to the original question the answer is obvious I think. Islam is based on war by any means not peace, and that includes deception.
Then there’s the concept of martyrdom created by Muhammad, it wasn’t just acceptable to die for Islam, it was encouraged. It’s not like these things have faded with time, every day now someone who sincerely believes in the sanctity of their actions is killing themselves and other people. Where is the peace in that. Or the use of Mosques and Islamic religious schools to teach the more militant aspects of Islam and in some cases to plan and carry out violent actions in the name of Islam.
Or how about madrassas that can be considered religious training camps for extremists and have been funded at incredible levels across the world.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html
All this is consistent with the actions and teachings of Muhammad and the origins and pratice of Islam from its start. It wouldn’t have spread or probably even survived without this violent militancy that was built into it.
We ignore this at our peril I think.
No religion or government is "of peace", they are self serving entities designed to get things for their people, usually by taking them from others. Islam stands out as slightly more warring than others, but much of that comes from their tribal past and being situated in the middle of historically significant trade routes. And then we found out they have oil!Maybe that's true, but Islam makes that claim. And it's based on the teaching and supposed divine nature of one man who also happened to be a very skilled military commander who didn't hesitate to use violence to further his belief system, something that his followers throughout history have been more than willing to emulate and still do. The entire foundation of Islam is based on this which helps explain why many Muslims do get so violent when the divine nature of Muhammad is called into question. It simply doesn't stand up to any sort of rational examination, which can be said of all religions if you dig deep enough.
It’s hard to say what “Islam” CLAIMS re: whether it is a religion of Peace. George W. made that claim for it. And individual Muslims who have a peaceful interpretation of Islam, make that claim, especially when pressed to do so by the actions of persons who claim to be Muslims that do very public, violent, despicable things in the name of “Islam”.
But really, there seems to be no one individual or entity that can make such a claim for Islam. IMO it is a religion that can be interpreted by some to be a religion of peace, and obviously, it is also a religion that can be interpreted to support violence and abuse of human rights.
It's hard to say what "Islam" CLAIMS re: whether it is a religion of Peace. George W. made that claim for it. And individual Muslims who have a peaceful interpretation of Islam, make that claim, especially when pressed to do so by the actions of persons who claim to be Muslims that do very public, violent, despicable things in the name of "Islam". But really, there seems to be no one individual or entity that can make such a claim for Islam. IMO it is a religion that can be interpreted by some to be a religion of peace, and obviously, it is also a religion that can be interpreted to support violence and abuse of human rights.There are parts of the Qur'an that can't be interpreted as anything but violent. Anyone who enbraces Islam must also embrace its violence. If they do not they are repudiating basic tenets of the religion.