Islam the religion of peace?

You think the twentieth century dictators were bad check out the death toll of Muhammad's thugs, and they are still adding victims

http://nocompulsion.com/the-greatest-murder-machine-in-history-the-real-non-politically-correct-history-of-islams-brutality/

Poker

Don't judge a religion with ~1.6 BILLION adherents on the actions of a small extreme group. That is exactly the same as judging all of Christianity based on the action of the KKK.

pokermind wrote:You think the twentieth century dictators were bad check out the death toll of Muhammad's thugs, and they are still adding victims

http://nocompulsion.com/the-greatest-murder-machine-in-history-the-real-non-politically-correct-history-of-islams-brutality/

Poker

This site does not mention the Mongols (that I noticed).

HTM

pokermind wrote:You think the twentieth century dictators were bad check out the death toll of Muhammad's thugs, and they are still adding victims

http://nocompulsion.com/the-greatest-murder-machine-in-history-the-real-non-politically-correct-history-of-islams-brutality/

Poker

I seriously doubt the mongols conquered to spread Islam. In fact the Mongol Empire in its famous incarnation was probably the shining example of freedom of religious belief of its time.

Yassa wrote:2. He [Chingis-Khan] ordered that all religions were to be respected and that no preference was to be shown to any of them. All this he commanded in order that it might be agreeable to Heaven.

Religious practice on the other hand...

Mongol_Empire#Religious_policies wrote:[In 1279/1280 under Qubilai] all the Muslims say: “if someone else slaughters [the animal] we do not eat”. Because the poor people are upset by this, from now on, Musuluman [Muslim] Huihui and Zhuhu [Jewish] Huihui, no matter who kills [the animal] will eat [it] and must cease slaughtering sheep themselves, and cease the rite of circumcision.

Yassa wrote:11. Forbidden, to cut the throats of animals slain for food; When an animal is to be eaten, its feet must be tied, its belly ripped open and its heart squeezed in the hand until the animal dies; then its meat may be eaten; but if anyone slaughter an animal after the Mohammedan fashion, he is to be himself slaughtered.

This doesn't quite look like spreading Islam with the sword (well, bow). Also, the Golden Horde and Ilkhanate adopted Islam as state religion only after the invasions of Europe, when the Empire proper was already falling apart.

Donnachaidh wrote:Don't judge a religion with ~1.6 BILLION adherents on the actions of a small extreme group. That is exactly the same as judging all of Christianity based on the action of the KKK.

[quote snipped]

Hmm 1.6 billion Muslims now due to the genocide of at least 1.1 billion murdered people in the article. No other religious/political group has slaughtered more people in history. Not the Romans, not the Nazis, not the communists Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot nor all together together come close. The mongols maybe killed close to that.

Poker

Within the text of Islam itself peace is possible... as long as all others are subservient to Islam and pay a head tax.

It seems that if one makes a fundamentalist/literalist reading of Islamic scripture that it is not a religion of peace. I think this leaves us with the real question:

Can Islam BE a religion of peace?

http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... ay-speech/

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origina ... heikh.html

The problem is that large proportions of the populations of many predominantly Muslim countries don't believe that humanistic enlightenment values such as human rights, freedom of thought, religion and speech, gender equality etc. should be the basis of their governments. How outside forces (governments, organisations and people) from the developed world can help to change sufficient numbers of people's minds is a really difficult question.

In a lot of cases there is also a lot of poverty or underdevelopment and the 'bad guys' (charities and organisations affiliated with/funded by Saudi Arabia etc.) are visibly helping them out whilst indoctrinating them.

One of the other annoying qualities of Islamic practice is the clerical refusal to allow official translations of the Quran. This is similar to pre-reformation Catholic Church opposition to translating the Bible out of Latin (which was itself a translation, ironically). The Quran is written is archaic Arabic that is about as comprehensible to various modern Arabic dialects today as Shakespearian or possibly Middle English (rough analogy). This serves the Islamic establishment very well because this helps enable them to control the interpretation of the Quran since they can also teach the meaning of words and phrases rather than allowing open discussion. The restriction of the Quran to Arabic also prevents discussion and engagement regarding it's content with outsiders/westerners unless they are willing to invest the time to learn that form of Arabic.

Some people might make the case that Buddhism is a religion of peace but counter-examples can be found in places like Thailand with Buddhist mobs attacking Christians or Muslims. I think the ultimate point is that humans are intolerant SOBs in general. We naturally have tribal mentalities and need serious education/indoctrination to get out of the 'us against them' worldview.

A beautiful example of controling the meaning of the book, is the word "fornication"

Really all the abrahamic religions preach violence.
In that, there is little to differentiate them.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I won't list them but you can Google lots of embarrassing webpages that list passages from the bible, koran and talmud that essentially espouse sharia law - stoning adulterous wives, killing drunken sons and lots more.
My theory is that Islam is about as old as Christianity was at the time of the inquisition and witch burnings, so we only have 500 years or so until they grow up.

Personally I don't follow any religion, but I do accept that I have to live with those who do. Luckily most muslims are sensible moderates, and the small percentage of fundamentalist nutters have adopted strategies that will eventually lead to them being defeated (not educating 50% of their population, and only partially educating the other 50% is just stupid).

Annachie wrote:A beautiful example of controling the meaning of the book, is the word "fornication"

Really all the abrahamic religions preach violence.
In that, there is little to differentiate them.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Good point about fornication!

One big example of Islamic hypocrisy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut%E2%80%98ah

This has become quite prevalent in Iran and there's a simple reason why - it turns out sex with different partners etc. is OKAY - so long as the priests get paid a fee to arrange it.

Then you have other countries in the region, where a man and wife holding hands in the street is illegal but a man beating his wife in the street is not a crime. I hope that the people who are living/suffering under these twisted moral standards can be free as soon as possible.

Simple rule is no religious expression outside the privacy of the home or Church or commune. If your Sihk friend needs to cover his hair have him wear a hat. Women who need to cover up can wear a headscarf and sunglasses. You do as the country you visit does. Here we don't wear a burqa. In Iran American tourists don't wear bikini's. Want to wear a cross keep it hidden in your shirt. etc...

While fashion changes ... The black ghost costume is never in style.

Islam might have ideals but the problem is with the extremists. If Islam actively policed itself, then it might be okay. It does not. 1.6 billion and only 100 million are extremists. Thinking Skittles right now.