Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

[dixon76710]

So Dixon...

I am not interested in bantering with you any longer over this issue...

You responded to my statement:

It is not religion that is violent
It is the people that are violent

Actually it was

Christianity and Islam both have peaceful aspects and hateful aspects...
It is who embraces what that is the issue

I was not responding to you.
I was initially just making a statement to all.

Riiiiiiight.

Man, I hate to bother getting into another debate in which you are out of your element, but here we go...

Quoteixon
Christianity is all turn the other cheek..., do unto others... and render unto Ceasar etc. Christianity simply doesnt have the aspects found in Islam that call for an Islamic government applying Islamic law, and the methods of warfare to bring it about...

... Can you begin to fathom what a difference this makes? Seriously. No joke...

Here are a few lines from the Bible contradicting your assertions.

and

Here we go again...

Quoteixon
Your reliance exclusively on the old testament only demonstrates my point. Your one verse from the New doesnt advocate violence against the unbelievers.

One verse?

I can provide many many MANY verses ..I just hope you are capable of understanding what the versus mean....
So again...this ridiculous assertion:

Quoteixon
Christianity is all turn the other cheek..., do unto others... and render unto Ceasar etc. Christianity simply doesnt have the aspects found in Islam that call for an Islamic government applying Islamic law, and the methods of warfare to bring it about...
Is INCORRECT ...

IF you understood, or would at least be willing to debate ...But then again...we already know you Dixon, and the conclusion has already been made crystal clear. See ya around...done with you here also.
No more time to waste on a person unable or unwilling to talk honestly...

and

How much Crack do you do?
You are almost a smart guy…but you waiver between sanity and idiocy so often that it is amusing, yet alarming....
You You You questioned my statement YOU DID (below) ...
You. YOU CHALLENGED ME. Step into reality...it is sublime!...
You respond with...what?
Some quip that I rely on Old Testament verses?
YOU CHALLENGED ME... .
I responded with these verses after you challenged my assertion ...
This is the end of our debate.
You are unable to recognize THIS FACT though...
You claim that I only use one New Testament source and that makes my case weak when this debate is only yours for the losing...

“So again...this ridiculous assertion:” (following is your ridiculous assertion…)

Quoteixon
Christianity is all turn the other cheek..., do unto others... and render unto Ceasar etc. Christianity simply doesnt have the aspects found in Islam that call for an Islamic government applying Islamic law, and the methods of warfare to bring it about...

(To which I say)
How can any person say otherwise?...
And then you come back with… * oh man...yep, he tries with this tripe *...

??? ??? ??? LOL! ??? ??? ???

What the hell are you talking about? LOL!

You questioned me and made silly claims
Dixon... * sigh * why bother!?
You are a one man FUBAR Squad... LOL!
* shrugs * I am going to see what my little kids (those ones that you admitted to thinking about sexually * YUK* !! ) because they seem to be a few steps beyond your understanding

and

... not that you understand.

Here is some stuff though... not gonna waste too much time "proving" anything to you, for that never does any good! HAHA LOL!...

Of course you don't.
You don't even indicate that you understand what we are debating!

Again...you challenged a comment that I made and now you are telling me ...
You then side-step poorly and start making assertions that I have not proved anything. It is incumbant upon you to make a case...not me....
If you don't agree with my comment then that is fine...
But you have proven nothing ....Dude...get real. You can only talk yourself into circles here, not me.
I will just stick to the root of this debate...again, rather than become empbroiled in your ridiculous tangent oriented retreat style of debate. :2razz:
You provide quotes about Islamic Law and quotes about Biblical Peace and you think that makes any kind of case? What a joke you are sir! LOL!
...Remeber that it WAS YOU that tried to instill this idea about Religious Law into the debate....you have contradicted NOTHING! LOL!
You have such a mundane mind Dixon...
Seriously... LOL! I mean... really! You are 47 or so years old? What a joke.
C'mon...provide NOTHING again as usual.
Give us something unrelated, again, to your challenge of my point.
You would? ...
I think that you don't understand LOL!

 

[dixon76710]

This is the pitfall I have observed when comparing the "doctrine" of one religion as the base for argument against another religion. Any one person can interpret a text (as in the Bible, Qu'ran, etc.) by reading into it one's own ideas (eisegesis).

Another pitfall can be to refrain from "interpret"ing a text or "reading into it one's own ideas". Especially when its

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited,...

read literally, its difficult for it to mean anything other than "Fight those who do not believe in Allah". And by its very nature, Islam restricts interpretation.

Ijtihad is the independent or original interpretation of problems not covered by the Qur’an (Islam's holy book), the Hadith (traditions concerning the Prophet's life and utterances), and ijma' (scholarly consensus). In the early days of the Muslim community, every adequately qualified jurist had the right to exercise such original thinking.

Fearing too much change would weaken their political clout, the gates of ijtihad were closed to Sunni Muslims by religious scholars about 500 years ago. From then on, scholars and jurists were to rely only on the original meaning and earlier interpretations of the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Open the Gates of Ijtihad by Claude Salhani - Common Ground News Service

The interpretation of Islamic doctrine reverted to those of the 5 recognized schools of Islamic thought in place in the 10th century. And its been frozen in place since according to the Sunnis. Thats how you end up with scholars such as Abu Zayd who was held by Egypts courts to be an apostate for even daring to question the legitimacy of owning slave girls and imposing a tax on christians and jews. Slavery and its legitimacy is covered in the Quran and Hadiths, as well the tax. All 5 schools of Islamic thought agreed on the matter. He was branded an apostate for simply expressing views "contrary to the divine verses", such issues are "not subject to discussion", because they were "religiously proven without doubt" in the 10th century.
20th freakin century and slavery cant even be questioned because that matter was resolved in the 10th century.

Nasr Abu Zayd
...but Islamic controversies about his academic work led to a court decision of apostasy and the denial of the appointment. A hisba trial started against him by fundamentalist Islamic scholars, he was declared a heretic (Murtadd) by an Egyptian court, was consequently declared divorced from his wife, Cairo University French Literature professor Dr. Ibthal Younis (since, according to Sharia law, it is not permissible for her to be married to a non-Muslim) and, in effect, forced out of his homeland.
"the defendant's proposition that the requirement of Christians and Jews to pay jizya (tax) constitutes a reversal of humanity's efforts to establish a better world is contrary to the divine verses… The verse on jizya, verse 29 of Sura al-Tawba, which the defendant opposes, is not subject to discussion. Further, the judgement stated that the denunciation by Abu Zayd of the permissibility of the ownership of slave girls, principle considered "religiously proven without doubt", is "contrary to all the divine texts which permit such provided that the required conditions are met"
Nasr Abu Zayd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bodi]

Now you are just being silly Dixon...
You have no arguement and now you are showing the true confusion regarding our debate or you are a liar.

I made this post as a general statement to all:

Christianity and Islam both have peaceful aspects and hateful aspects...
It is who embraces what that is the issue

you will notice that I am not responding to any one post?

and you responded with:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Christianity and Islam both have peaceful aspects and hateful aspects...
It is who embraces what that is the issue

Christianity is all turn the other cheek..., do unto others... and render unto Ceasar etc. Christianity simply doesnt have the aspects found in Islam that call for an Islamic government applying Islamic law, and the methods of warfare to bring it about.

quoting me and responding directly to me.
You have no argument and apparently don't have a point.
Yours is a losing position...whatever it is, not because I am winning, it is because you have no point and you are just lost.

So your:

Riiiiiiight.

Is about what again? Nothing. Just more Dixon confusion. You leave out the rest of my points since they nailed the facts home...again.

This is so fricking boring man. :roll:

We need to get this conversation back to the root before I, at least, will engage it further. I have tried for a while now, focusing on how you are evading responsibility and attempting to put the burden onto me when it is the exact opposite.

* sigh *

:2wave:

 

[blastula]

Is islam a religion of peace?

It depends on what muslims mean by the word "peace". Afterall, muslims and non-muslims are always on diferent page when it comes down to social values and moral principle. When non-muslims, aka "infidels" or "kafir" by islamic terms, offer their opinions, their opinions are invariably dismissed as "great misunderstanding" even if the very words came out from the muslims' own mouth. Or worst, they themselves are accused by muslims and other self-imposed dhimmies of being racist, bigoted and hateful.

So, what better way to understand the term "peace" in islamic context without getting the rotten eggs thrown at your face is to hear the meaning from the islamic imams, islamic clerics, islamic scholars, islamic spokemen, islamic sharia council general secretary, islamic judges, etc of our modern day islamic authority of islam themselves? This is also how followers of islam and adherents of islamic principles traditionally get their religious indoctrination throughout their life that shape their way of thinking.

Here is how a renowned UK sharia judge, who is also the islamic spokeman, who is also the general secretary of islamic sharia council had to say about sharia law and its contribution to peace:

'We want to offer sharia law to Britain' - Telegraph

In a documentary to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled Divorce: Sharia Style, Dr Hasan goes further, advocating a sharia system for Britain.

"If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal," he says.

"Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.

"We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons." ​

Of course, no matter what we do or not do, even if we didn't hiss a breath, a muslim will always do what a muslim does best: accusing the west of great misunderstanding of what he had just said. To wit, as in the following statement:

Dr Hasan, who is also a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain on issues of sharia law, says there is great misunderstanding of the issue in the West.

"Whenever people associate the word 'sharia' with Muslims, they think it is flogging and stoning to death and cutting off the hand," he says with a smile.​

 

[dixon76710]

Now you are just being silly Dixon...
You have no arguement and now you are showing the true confusion regarding our debate or you are a liar.

?????

Sooo why the biblical verses and claims of "violent" and "hateful aspects" of christianity in response to my assertions?

So Dixon...
I am not interested in bantering with you any longer over this issue...

Quote:
Sooo why the biblical verses and claims of "violent" and "hateful aspects" of christianity in response to my assertions?

I was not responding to you.

I dont need an arguement. I can simply copy and paste the posts you made

Actually........

and the 36 references to "you" "your" or "Dixon" and the inclusion of 7 separate quotes of mine within your posts, DEMONSTRATES my point that you were quite clearly "responding to" ME!! I would rather not even make an arguement when the point can be demonstrated without any need for arguement. You rely on long, convoluted arguements to make your points. I can demonstrate the validity of mine. i can simply post a verse from the koran and make my point, you post a verse from the bible and need to add your tortured arguement and interpretation of that verse to make your point.

 

[dixon76710]

Is islam a religion of peace?

It depends on what muslims mean by the word "peace". Afterall, muslims and non-muslims are always on diferent page when it comes down to social values and moral principle.

I dont doubt that if the muslims

[2.191] ...kill them wherever you find them,...

[2.193] ...fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah...

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you

and for the idolaters they

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them,

and for the Christians and jews

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ...out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

that the process might bring about some semblance of "peace" when completed. People who are either dead or "in a state of subjection" have no choice but to be peaceful.

 

[rsixing]

I dont doubt that if the muslims



and for the idolaters they



and for the Christians and jews



that the process might bring about some semblance of "peace" when completed. People who are either dead or "in a state of subjection" have no choice but to be peaceful.

Your underlined statement is pure hyperbole. Any one person, even with a semblance of historical perspective, realizes that to kill of subjugate any person(s) does not guarantee peace. Certainly you will have those who cower in fear of someone who holds sway over them, either by threat of physical violence or threat of death, but many will choose death over being subjected to the will of tyrant(s).

A certain quote comes to mind;

"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"
Patrick Henry
March 23, 1775, St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

Untold millions of people have rebelled against regimes, dictators and totalitarian governments and this will not cease. Additionally your rhetoric will not fuel the fire of unfounded fear, something our "homeland security" and its agents attempt to propagate also, against the islamists who wish to bring islam to the world at large and have no hesitation to murder those who will not submit.

And seriously, Dixon, if you have such fear and hatred of islam and its adherents you should enlist in the military and go to them. Don't sit behind your monitor and let your fingers do the talking. Stop their onslaught against our society where they dwell. In other words let your actions speak louder then your rhetoric.

 

[dixon76710]

to kill of subjugate any person(s) does not guarantee peace.

Had I said anything about "gurantee peace" you might actually have a point.
Any one person, even with a semblance of historical perspective of the Islamic empire would know that slaying the idolaters and putting the jews and christians into a state of subjection brought some semblance of "peace". The tribes of the Arabian peninsula fought among themselves before Muhammad came on the scene, he brought some semblance of peace after killing the idolaters who refused to convert and puting the jews and christians into a state of subjection.

 

[rsixing]

Had I said anything about "gurantee peace" you might actually have a point.
Any one person, even with a semblance of historical perspective of the Islamic empire would know that slaying the idolaters and putting the jews and christians into a state of subjection brought some semblance of "peace". The tribes of the Arabian peninsula fought among themselves before Muhammad came on the scene, he brought some semblance of peace after killing the idolaters who refused to convert and puting the jews and christians into a state of subjection.

You're right. You didn't say guarantee. I did. But you didn't even respond in context to what I had written. No surprise coming from you.

 

[dixon76710]

And seriously, Dixon, if you have such fear and hatred of islam and its adherents ....

Revealing that posting Islamic scripture is interpreted as hatred and fear of Islam? Hmmm? must be something in the text.

 

[Bodi]

Dixon
and the 36 references to "you" "your" or "Dixon" and the inclusion of 7 separate quotes of mine within your posts, DEMONSTRATES my point that you were quite clearly "responding to" ME!! I would rather not even make an arguement when the point can be demonstrated without any need for arguement. You rely on long, convoluted arguements to make your points. I can demonstrate the validity of mine. i can simply post a verse from the koran and make my point, you post a verse from the bible and need to add your tortured arguement and interpretation of that verse to make your point.

You are lost. :doh
Sure, after YOU made YOUR challenge to ME,
I responded to YOU with a lot of YOUs since it was YOU that I was communicating with...

Whatever man... :lol: YOU just don't seem to get it. YOU Epitomize Confusion. YOU LOSE. :2wave:

 

[dixon76710]

So why all the biblical verses in response to my assertion that

Christianity is all turn the other cheek..., do unto others... and render unto Ceasar etc. Christianity simply doesnt have the aspects found in Islam that call for an Islamic government applying Islamic law, and the methods of warfare to bring it about.

proclaiming them to be "contradicting your assertions"?

I was not responding to you.I was initially just making a statement to all.

?????
the 36 references to "you" "your" or "Dixon" and the inclusion of 7 separate quotes of mine within your posts, DEMONSTRATES my point that you were quite clearly "responding to" ME!!

You are lost. :doh
Sure, after YOU made YOUR challenge to ME,
I responded to YOU with a lot of YOUs since it was YOU that I was communicating with...

Whatever man... :lol: YOU just don't seem to get it. YOU Epitomize Confusion. YOU LOSE. :2wave:

You should pick your line of BS and stick with it. You seem to be confusing yourself.

 

[Bodi]

:rofl

BS to idiots
Pure truth to a semi-intelligent person

I have not altered one line about how I posted a statement to all in general and it was you who quoted me and responded to me..thus, the challenge. You know this as well, not sure why you persist in being a liar about it.

Instead of:

Originally Posted by dixon76710
So why all the biblical verses in response to my assertion that

Christianity is all turn the other cheek..., do unto others... and render unto Ceasar etc. Christianity simply doesnt have the aspects found in Islam that call for an Islamic government applying Islamic law, and the methods of warfare to bring it about.

proclaiming them to be "contradicting your assertions"?

You should ask:

So why did I challenge Bodi's assertion that

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Christianity and Islam both have peaceful aspects and hateful aspects...
It is who embraces what that is the issue

with

Originally Posted by dixon76710
Christianity is all turn the other cheek..., do unto others... and render unto Ceasar etc. Christianity simply doesnt have the aspects found in Islam that call for an Islamic government applying Islamic law, and the methods of warfare to bring it about.

and then backpeddle with my cyclical routine that goes like:

Originally Posted by dixon76710
gee Bodi, you are responding to me and even though it is crystal clear that you posted first and I responded to you...I will keep saying that you were responding to me instead. That out to do it! It makes no sense and Bodi is not even close to falling for this childish act, but I will persist with it no matter how long it takes *childish giggling from Dixon - hehehehe *

...all the while ignoring the truth in your efforts to be dishonest?
Unless you are truly that clueless that is... :roll:

?????
:doh
?????

You just flat out suck at this man...
Boring as hell.

Have a nice time trying to figure it all out...taking you long enough! :2wave:

* Dixon thinking *

uuhhhhh?

 

[dixon76710]

:rofl

BS to idiots
Pure truth to a semi-intelligent person

I have not altered one line about how I posted a statement to all in general and it was you who quoted me and responded to me..thus, the challenge.

Aaaand in response to my so called "challenge" you supplied a bunch of bible verses, proclaimed them to be "contradicting your assertions" and claimed I didnt have an arguement. I then asked why all the verses in response to my assertion. First its "I was not responding to you" and then its "Sure, after YOU made YOUR challenge". I suspect all this shiite from you is nothing more than your way of avoiding the need to respond to me showing that the verses did not mean what you alleged.

 

[dixon76710]

:

...all the while ignoring the truth in your efforts to be dishonest?

Oooh thats rich coming from such a deep, dark pit, such as yourself, void of any semblance of honesty or integrity, or it seems any redeeming human qualities. Right after you make up a bunch of shiite and post it as if it were a quote of mine.

 

[dixon76710]

Hey, where are all the homosexuals that usually rush in to support your claims regardless of their validity?

 

[Bodi]

Dixon
Aaaand in response to my so called "challenge" you supplied a bunch of bible verses, proclaimed them to be "contradicting your assertions" and claimed I didnt have an arguement. I then asked why all the verses in response to my assertion. First its "I was not responding to you" and then its "Sure, after YOU made YOUR challenge". I suspect all this shiite from you is nothing more than your way of avoiding the need to respond to me showing that the verses did not mean what you alleged.

Oh brother :roll:

- I made a general statement.
- You responded directly to me with a specific challenge.
- I responded directly to you and made a point that you are being selective with your interpretations when I provided quotes that show that both religions preach violence.
- You became even MORE selective with the information I provided by trying to dismiss information as irrelevant and then started with your "you need to prove me wrong" stuff.
- THAT is the issue.
- Since then I have been trying to explain to you that you need to prove that my statement was invalid.
- I posted first and you challenged me.
- You did nothing but provide an initial opinion to my initial statement.
- If that is all you had, I guess that was the end of the debate then
- Did you understand the definition of "challenge" or did you simply ignore that as you do with most things?
- This is ridiculous

Oooh thats rich coming from such a deep, dark pit, such as yourself, void of any semblance of honesty or integrity, or it seems any redeeming human qualities. Right after you make up a bunch of shiite and post it as if it were a quote of mine.

Yes... we are ALL Homosexuals and you are the Just and Mighty Lone Crusader fighting the good fight against our dishonest and lying ways... :roll:

I am tired of your continual avoidance of the issue and your refusal to be honest.
This garbage of yours is so juvenile.
I am done with you on this thread.

:2wave:

 

[dixon76710]

Oh brother :roll:

- I made a general statement.
- You responded directly to me with a specific challenge.
- I responded directly to you and made a point that you are being selective with your interpretations when I provided quotes that show that both religions preach violence.

And then when I asked why all the verses in response to my assertion("challenge"). First you claimed "I was not responding to you". Then I showed the the 36 references to "you" "your" or "Dixon" and the inclusion of 7 separate quotes of mine within your posts containing all these verses, THEN, of course, you had no alternative but to admit that you were responding directly to my so called "challenge". Where am I losing you cupcake?
And

Christianity is all turn the other cheek..., do unto others... and render unto Ceasar etc. Christianity simply doesnt have the aspects found in Islam that call for an Islamic government applying Islamic law, and the methods of warfare to bring it about.

is two declarative sentences. Two sentences that dont even contradict the statement of yours that they were in response to.
Revealing that you dont even attempt to address my CHALLENGE to your characterizations of those verses, supported with quotes from the bible that show your full of shiite. Instead you do this week long bob and weave.

 

[Billo_Really]

Where am I losing you cupcake?

"cupcake"...

That's pretty disrespectful.

And coming from someone who objects to being called common derrivitives of his own name...

Tell me, do you know what a hypocrit is?

 

[cherokee]

"cupcake"...

That's pretty disrespectful.

And coming from someone who objects to being called common derrivitives of his own name...

Tell me, do you know what a hypocrit is?

You?.......

 

[Billo_Really]

You?.......

And that is based on what?

 

[cherokee]

And that is based on what?

Just the person you are bill....

 

[Billo_Really]

Just the person you are bill....

Alright...........guess I can't argue with that.

 

[Diogenes]

It depends on what muslims mean by the word "peace".

That's really the problem in a nutshell. It reminds me of Tacitus' observation of the Romans, "They make a desert and call it peace."

 

[niftydrifty]

That's really the problem in a nutshell. It reminds me of Tacitus' observation of the Romans, "They make a desert and call it peace."

that's not really it at all. while you and blastula are wrangling with what kind of "peace," and dixon et al are struggling with what a religion is, ... no, it's really about who or which Muslims. and what is Islam. that is the question, stated quite clearly, right at the top. read it.