Is Islam evil/a religion of war?

[Olak]

As a secularist sure, why not say it's evil.

 

[marduc]

religion is evil- the concept (edit: - of evil-) would not exist without it

 

[earthworm]

It's a religion, ergo it forbids men to use their brains for independent thought, ergo, it's evil. Islam was spread by the sword, and hasn't abandoned the concept of jihad, ergo, it's a religion of war.

This makes some sense, I agree to an extent.
Islam must clean its house, have they done that?
And they have the gall to wonder why Americans tend to hate Islam. Of course, we are divided on this.

 

[Middleground]

I find the results of this poll most troubling.

 

[Demon of Light]

Being spread BY war is not the same as being a religion OF war. Christianity was spread by war on many occasions, the most severe being the Spanish conquests in the Americas, Crusades, etc. People hi-jacking a religion, even its founder, does not make it anything different than the majority of those practicing it, and that majority is for peace.

Surely you know the practitioners of a religion typically do not follow closely the tenets of their religion. In the case of Christianity straying from the path is a bad thing, with Islam it is a good thing because Islam advocates oppression and war thus straying from it means being more tolerant and peaceful.

Also, the difference between the situations you mention is that the first Crusades were purely defensive in nature. In the Spanish conquests of the Americas Christianity was not so much spread by war as by colonization itself. Most of the population of the former Spanish colonies are either dominantly Spanish or mixed. As such it is only natural for Christianity to be the dominant belief system there.

More to the point religion was not tied up with the Spanish invasion as much as it was with the Arab invasions.

Islam did at times spread through war and conquest. What? You think it is the only religion who did so?

No, I think it is the only religion where war has been the primary form of proselytizing from its inception. Christianity spread peacefully for centuries before states adopted it and they did so without anyone forcing it on them. Islam was spread by war and violence from the very beginning. In recent years it has spread primarily by immigration. There are few converts to Islam in the Western world, it is almost entirely immigration that contributes to the growing Muslim population. Immigration from countries or areas that had long ago been converted by conquest.

 

[Ikari]

Islam is not inherently evil or a religion of war. It's a religion, the same as any other we have. Invented by man for purposes of man, it has the same benefits and pitfalls as any other religion in this world. How it is used isn't so much by the demands of the religion as much as it is actions of man.

 

[Demon of Light]

Islam is not inherently evil or a religion of war. It's a religion, the same as any other we have. Invented by man for purposes of man, it has the same benefits and pitfalls as any other religion in this world. How it is used isn't so much by the demands of the religion as much as it is actions of man.

In this its purposes were those of a conqueror. Honestly, now, there's no need to be politically-correct about history. Islam was established by a conqueror and has been spread almost entirely through conquest. To call it a religion of war is acknowledging its history. I do not think this makes it inherently evil, but calling it a religion of peace is just bull**** honestly.

 

[MSgt]

Every religion is a religion of war.

This is stupid and ignorant.

Holy books all legitimize a certain measure of violence. They also legitmize peace in a larger capacity. But people do prefer to demonize religion dont they? I don't know what's worse, the radicals who use specific versus to deliver violence or the radicals who seek to deny the overwhelming good will that comes from religious versus. Ignorance is celebrated by both parties.

 

[jujuman13]

Very easy to answer the initial question.
No Religion is evil.
All adherents of every Religion are evil.

 

[Bodi]

Surely you know the practitioners of a religion typically do not follow closely the tenets of their religion. In the case of Christianity straying from the path is a bad thing, with Islam it is a good thing because Islam advocates oppression and war thus straying from it means being more tolerant and peaceful.

That is a nice opinionated statement.

Also, the difference between the situations you mention is that the first Crusades were purely defensive in nature. In the Spanish conquests of the Americas Christianity was not so much spread by war as by colonization itself. Most of the population of the former Spanish colonies are either dominantly Spanish or mixed. As such it is only natural for Christianity to be the dominant belief system there.

All of the eight crusades were offensive as they were launched from Europe to the M.E. and designed to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims. The Spanish conquests were not entirely religious, but due to their relgious beliefs, they felt empowered to do and take what they wanted from the heathen natives. Christianity is the dominate religion because it was forced on the natives.

more to the point religion was not tied up with the Spanish invasion as much as it was with the Arab invasions.

Not at all... it was simply not as overt.

 

[Bodi]

In this its purposes were those of a conqueror. Honestly, now, there's no need to be politically-correct about history. Islam was established by a conqueror and has been spread almost entirely through conquest. To call it a religion of war is acknowledging its history. I do not think this makes it inherently evil, but calling it a religion of peace is just bull**** honestly.

A religion is what the people of it are... if they are peaceful then it is a religion of peace. A religion is not a stagnant entity, it can and does evolve just like the US Constitution can and does. Islam began by a warlord, true. Also irrelevant. It spread by fighters attempting to conquer, as did Christianity in the New World. This issue needs perspective, in all honesty.

 

[Demon of Light]

That is a nice opinionated statement.

I would say it is only opinionated if you think "turn the other cheek" is bad or that "kill the idolaters wherever you find them" is good.

All of the eight crusades were offensive as they were launched from Europe to the M.E. and designed to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims.

Aside from the fact not all of the Crusades even targeted Muslims it was only offensive in the sense that it was a counter-offensive. Muslim armies kept advancing and this was responsible for the first three crusades. After the fourth crusade, which did not target Muslims, they were offensive, but they were also failures for the most part.

The Spanish conquests were not entirely religious, but due to their relgious beliefs, they felt empowered to do and take what they wanted from the heathen natives. Christianity is the dominate religion because it was forced on the natives.

Not really. As I said most people in Latin America are either of primarily Spanish heritage or a mixture of native and Spanish. The U.S. and Canada are primarily Christian, but not because we converted the natives.

Not at all... it was simply not as overt.

Religion wasn't really relevant to it at all. The Spanish were looking for land and riches.

A religion is what the people of it are... if they are peaceful then it is a religion of peace. A religion is not a stagnant entity, it can and does evolve just like the US Constitution can and does. Islam began by a warlord, true. Also irrelevant. It spread by fighters attempting to conquer, as did Christianity in the New World. This issue needs perspective, in all honesty.

I don't agree with that sort of distinction. A religion is defined by those teachings that constitute its central tenets. Christianity is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Jesus Christ just as Buddhism is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Buddha. Islam is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Muhammad. Muslims would have to reject substantial parts of Muhammad's teachings to reconcile any support of a peaceful and tolerant Islamic faith. That to me says all that needs to be said about how one should characterize Islam.

 

[Laila]

There are few converts to Islam in the Western world, it is almost entirely immigration that contributes to the growing Muslim population. Immigration from countries or areas that had long ago been converted by conquest.

Few converts eh?
Any source for that claim?

And so? I still don't see the big deal Islam spread some through war, get over it. I'm sure the victims 2,000 years ago are very grateful over the concern you express ....:roll:

 

[Laila]

I don't agree with that sort of distinction. A religion is defined by those teachings that constitute its central tenets. Christianity is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Jesus Christ just as Buddhism is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Buddha. Islam is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Muhammad. Muslims would have to reject substantial parts of Muhammad's teachings to reconcile any support of a peaceful and tolerant Islamic faith. That to me says all that needs to be said about how one should characterize Islam.

Islam is defined by the holy text. That is what makes up alot of what is Islam and always will.
Prophet Mohammed is just one more Prophet in a line of Messengers of God.

Jesus is more important by role in Islam than Prophet Mohammed ever will be :doh

 

[Qatzel Ok]

They fight to defend their oil resources from Western multinationals. Therefore, their religion must be evil?

I don't understand this way of rationalizing colonialism. Someone please explain what Mohamed has to do with the West destroying Iraqi and Afghan societies?

Also, there's a lot of fake history in this thread.

 

[Bodi]

I would say it is only opinionated if you think "turn the other cheek" is bad or that "kill the idolaters wherever you find them" is good.

Okay... I'll counter with:

Christianity:
Jeremiah 50:21 (NIV)
"Attack the land of Merathaim and those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them," declares the LORD. "Do everything I have commanded you."

Deuteronomy 2:32-34
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

Islam:
Whoever kills another one without justifiable cause, surely he is killing all of humanity. And whoever saves the life of another one, surely he saves the lives of all of humanity. [Sura Al Ma'aidah: Ayah 32]

Aside from the fact not all of the Crusades even targeted Muslims it was only offensive in the sense that it was a counter-offensive. Muslim armies kept advancing and this was responsible for the first three crusades. After the fourth crusade, which did not target Muslims, they were offensive, but they were also failures for the most part.

Political reasons may change, but the original intent of the Crusades was religious, this is a non-debatable fact.

Not really. As I said most people in Latin America are either of primarily Spanish heritage or a mixture of native and Spanish. The U.S. and Canada are primarily Christian, but not because we converted the natives.

They are of Spanish heritage because they were conquered and murdered into submission, how is this not obvious?

Religion wasn't really relevant to it at all. The Spanish were looking for land and riches.

And the Muslims were looking for land and riches as well, what's your point?

I don't agree with that sort of distinction. A religion is defined by those teachings that constitute its central tenets. Christianity is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Jesus Christ just as Buddhism is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Buddha. Islam is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Muhammad. Muslims would have to reject substantial parts of Muhammad's teachings to reconcile any support of a peaceful and tolerant Islamic faith. That to me says all that needs to be said about how one should characterize Islam.

I think that I nailed it...

 

[hazlnut]

Islam is a bunch of pikers compared to the Catholic Church.

 

[Gibberish]

Religion is whatever the followers make it to be. You can easily be a Muslim and be the most peaceful person in the world. Unfortunately there is a lot of money and power to be had for those that use the religion for war.

 

[kaya'08]

I'm shocked at the results of this poll...truly. Forget the fact that those who view Islam as an evil religion is deeply mistaken to begin with, but thinking realistically, that couldn't be possible. Islam has 1.5 billion followers. If this religion truly was evil, and truly was dedicated to war and expansionism, we wouldn't be here right now. :shrug:

 

[Laila]

I'm shocked at the results of this poll...truly. Forget the fact that those who view Islam as an evil religion is deeply mistaken to begin with, but thinking realistically, that couldn't be possible. Islam has 1.5 billion followers. If this religion truly was evil, and truly was dedicated to war and expansionism, we wouldn't be here right now. :shrug:

Shocked .... really?
I'm not. There are alot of stupid people on these forums. I'd just wish they had the guts to say what they think about Islam in a public poll. Wonder how many of those numbers would drop ....

 

[kaya'08]

I'd wager the stats would be different if Sanitas had made votes public. I sure as hell would have. I do that for MY controversial polls anyway, to publicly denounce the collective retards of this forum.

 

[tlmorg02]

Islam is not an evil/war-mongering religion. However, just as in every sect or group, there are those who attempt to hijack the tenets of the religion to justify their own agendas. Terrorist groups are only a small fraction of the Muslims in the world and should not be used as the symbol of the religion, no more than those Catholic priests who molested children should be viewed as the norm for the Catholic church.

 

[The Uncola]

From my perspective, ALL organized religions are a mixture of good and bad. Broadbrush labels are for hatemongers, bigots, propagandists, and idiots that buy propaganda.

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."-L. Long

 

[Demon of Light]

Few converts eh?
Any source for that claim?

I have many sources, but just consider how much of the Muslim population in Europe or North America are immigrants. You'll find very quickly that immigrants from Muslim countries or regions make up the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the West. There are converts but they're a small minority.

And so? I still don't see the big deal Islam spread some through war, get over it. I'm sure the victims 2,000 years ago are very grateful over the concern you express ....:roll:

Except it wasn't 2,000 years ago or even 1,000 years ago. It also wasn't some, but the vast majority. The Middle East and North Africa is dominantly Muslim because they came under the control of a Muslim empire. It is also the case with the Muslim populations of South and Central Asia. Muslim populations in the Balkans are also there because of a Muslim empire, specifically the Ottomans.

Islam is defined by the holy text. That is what makes up alot of what is Islam and always will.
Prophet Mohammed is just one more Prophet in a line of Messengers of God.

Jesus is more important by role in Islam than Prophet Mohammed ever will be :doh

Funny, because I don't see any Muslims getting their panties in a bunch over depictions of Christ. Muhammad is clearly the central religious figure of Islam and it is his teachings on which Muslims have based their actions.

Okay... I'll counter with:

Christianity:
Jeremiah 50:21 (NIV)
"Attack the land of Merathaim and those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them," declares the LORD. "Do everything I have commanded you."

Deuteronomy 2:32-34
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

I figured someone would foolishly counter with Old Testament verses. Were these the teachings of Christ? No. His were all in the New Testament, specifically the Gospels.

Political reasons may change, but the original intent of the Crusades was religious, this is a non-debatable fact.

Actually, it is quite debateable

They are of Spanish heritage because they were conquered and murdered into submission, how is this not obvious?

That doesn't even make sense. Spanish heritage means they got down and dirty with some Spaniards or are Spaniards. Either way it does not translate to forcing conversion. I am not saying people weren't forced, but most of the population has at least some Spanish ancestry meaning they would likely be Christian either way.

And the Muslims were looking for land and riches as well, what's your point?

My point is the Spanish were not motivated by religion at all, while Muslim empires were.

I'm shocked at the results of this poll...truly. Forget the fact that those who view Islam as an evil religion is deeply mistaken to begin with, but thinking realistically, that couldn't be possible. Islam has 1.5 billion followers. If this religion truly was evil, and truly was dedicated to war and expansionism, we wouldn't be here right now. :shrug:

Not at all. Whatever one says about Islam most people are not evil or dedicated to war. Hence even if their religion endorses war and oppression it doesn't mean the people who practice it will.

 

[Bodi]

I figured someone would foolishly counter with Old Testament verses. Were these the teachings of Christ? No. His were all in the New Testament, specifically the Gospels.

Bible
ˈbaɪ bəlShow Spelled[bahy-buh l] Show IPA
–noun
1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.
2. Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament.
3. ( often lowercase ) the sacred writings of any religion.
4. ( lowercase ) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible.

Bible | Define Bible at Dictionary.com

The Christian Bible is divided into two parts. The first is called the Old Testament, containing the 39 books of Hebrew Scripture, and the second portion is called the New Testament, containing 27 books.

Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look, we are talking about the religion of Christianity, not just the teachings of Jesus. Christians follow the Bible, all of it. When I was going to church, the Pastor would refer to New and Old Testament. If you want to change your argument, that is fine, but making such a silly change in the debate is ridiculous and the only one looking foolish is you.

Actually, it is quite debateable

Right… then debate it. Like the hatred debate and the punitive parenting argument that you had, your opinion means nothing.

Further, if the Muslims conquered Jerusalem for religious reasons and the Christians invaded to get the city back for religious reasons, then the Crusades were religious.

the term crusades refers to a series of endeavors by the church to promote various religious and moral causes

The Crusades — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Western Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291.

Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A religious war is a war caused by, or justified by, religious differences. It can involve one state with an established religion against another state with a different religion or a different sect within the same religion, or a religiously motivated group attempting to spread its faith by violence, or to suppress another group because of its religious beliefs or practices. The Muslim conquests, the French Wars of Religion, the Crusades, and the Reconquista are frequently cited historical examples.

Religious war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That doesn't even make sense. Spanish heritage means they got down and dirty with some Spaniards or are Spaniards. Either way it does not translate to forcing conversion. I am not saying people weren't forced, but most of the population has at least some Spanish ancestry meaning they would likely be Christian either way.

Of course it makes sense. Ancestry is irrelevant. The reason that Central and South America is Catholic is because the Spanish Catholics conquered the Americas and forced their religion on the natives.

The Spaniards were committed, by Vatican decree, to convert their New World indigenous subjects to Catholicism. However, often initial efforts were questionably successful, as the indigenous people added Catholicism into their longstanding traditional ceremonies and beliefs. The many native expressions, forms, practices, and items of art could be considered idolatry and prohibited or destroyed by Spanish missionaries, military, and civilians. This included religious items, sculptures, and jewelry made of gold or silver, which were melted down before shipment to Spain.

Spanish colonization of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point is the Spanish were not motivated by religion at all, while Muslim empires were.

The Spaniards were committed, by Vatican decree, to convert their New World indigenous subjects to Catholicism.

Whatever one says about Islam most people are not evil or dedicated to war.

Well said… if the people are not evil or dedicated to war, then it isn’t a religion of war.