DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t (Video Interview)

**maks_holi** · 08-15-2007, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by CyberShy
describes north of 90% christians... those are also called nominal christians, but they would fight in the name of the faith if aroused enough...

Yes, we christians are, like all humans, hypocrites.
I do not claim here that christians are good people. Christians make war and use violence. But that's an act of hypocritism, not an act of christianity.
That's what I'm trying to say.

agree

in the end it does not matter too much, as I have had muslims who say that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the "warmongering" interpretations are false...

And Muhammed, was he a man of peace or a man of war in their eyes?

one way or another, you can abuse both systems, and while you might like to claim that warmongering Christians are ignorant, so will a "peacefull/moderate" muslim for his warmongering brothers of faith.

While his prophet, Muhammed, is the prime example of a warmonger.

To simply call on the actions of the founder, it is a bit tough, as Christianity as a whole is very far from the "original intent" religion created by Jesus, it has the name but lacks the substance...

I guess if we had a muslim participant here (thought we had a few in the past) they would be able to argue better, but I think one point about Muhammed as a warmonger is that "war is the last option"... just looked up this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general

Views

[edit]
Muslim View

Muslims view that the Muslims fought only when attacked, or in the context of a wider war of self-defense. They argue that Muhammad was the first among the major military figures of history to lay down rules for humane warfare, and that he was scrupulous in limiting the loss of life as much as possible.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in Mizan that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to Muhammad against Divinely specified peoples of his times (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al) as a form of Divine punishment -- for they had persistently denied the truth of Muhammad's mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by Allah through Muhammad, and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam, hence now, the only valid reason for war is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. (jihad)[1][20]

[edit]
Non-Muslim view

Muhammad's critics often hold that the Muslims engaged in wars of aggression, that they caused much bloodshed and suffering, that they imposed Islam at the point of a sword, and that Muhammad's conduct is not an example to be imitated [original research?]. Conversely, other non-Muslim academics believe that Muhammad was a reluctant warrior, such that he disliked fighting except when he believed it to be absolutely necessary.[21]

so clearly there could be good grounds for further discussion. While I am not an Islamic expert, I can claim that - opposing to your view - there are grounds to say that Muhammed was not necessarily a "man of war" but merely he had to fight because this was the last option. In any case certainly not adequate that the only possible interpretation of him is as a "warmonger".

That's a good base for a nice theological debate, but it's not relevant to this discussion.
Christians claim that Jesus is their founder, and even if he isn't, and Paul is the real founder, who abused Jesus words, even then Paul is only changing Judaism into Christianity, and not changing Jesus' religion of hate into a religion of peace (or the other way around).

Even if Jesus is not the real founder of christianity, christians (and the violent once in particular) do believe so, and count his words, as written in the gospels, as being the highest revealed authority.

at least organized religion, the same could be (I have no Idea, but I gues the principle should apply) said about Islam as well...

Not from the perspective of the believer.
The believing muslim believes that Muhammed is the prime prophet of Allah. And he believes that the Quran desribes the words and acts of Muhammed.
And he believes that Muhammed, in the name of Allah, formed the Caliphat (or the pre-caliphat), also by the use of force.

It's not important if Muhammed is the real founder of Islam, and if the stories about him are true or not.
What matters here is that the believers, and the violent believers of Islam in particular, believe that those stories are of a key importance.

And it only makes sence that they interpret the Quran from the image they from Muhammed

Totally pointless and outright insulting, and can only be used for alienating moderate muslims further away.

Thus you're saying that the words of non-muslims make moderate muslims, who claim that Islam is peace, change into violent muslims?

I am sure that saying to someone that his base belief requires war to promote his beilef (if he himself does not hold that opinion) is not a good way to start a discussion...

A question (open question)
Are there (many) ex-muslims or atheists, who think that the Quran is a beautiful book, they just don't believe in?
I know that many atheists / ex-christians still love the Bible, for all kinds of reasons, but just don't believe that it holds any important information, except cultural information, etc.

It appears to me, but I may wrong, and that's why I ask that question, how many non-muslims (and ex-muslims in particular) do consider the Quran to be beautiful and interesting.

I have a Quran myself, and I've read a lot in it. I must say that it's quite a boring book, it's hard to read it. I'd never put it in line with the Bible, except that it's the 'holy' book of the Muslims as the Bible is the 'holy' book of the christians (however even that comparison fails).
But I'm not the right person to judge between the Quran and the Bible, since I'm biased

no idea, and certainly Bible has great literary value from the period, but I know of no "muslim atheists"... at least who were active muslims before, but I am sure that when their societies move towards secularity, there will be scholars who will find the book interesting for other reasons...

08-15-2007, 07:16 PM	#21
maks_holi Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 523 Senior Member	Originally posted by CyberShy describes north of 90% christians... those are also called nominal christians, but they would fight in the name of the faith if aroused enough... Yes, we christians are, like all humans, hypocrites. I do not claim here that christians are good people. Christians make war and use violence. But that's an act of hypocritism, not an act of christianity. That's what I'm trying to say. agree in the end it does not matter too much, as I have had muslims who say that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the "warmongering" interpretations are false... And Muhammed, was he a man of peace or a man of war in their eyes? one way or another, you can abuse both systems, and while you might like to claim that warmongering Christians are ignorant, so will a "peacefull/moderate" muslim for his warmongering brothers of faith. While his prophet, Muhammed, is the prime example of a warmonger. To simply call on the actions of the founder, it is a bit tough, as Christianity as a whole is very far from the "original intent" religion created by Jesus, it has the name but lacks the substance... I guess if we had a muslim participant here (thought we had a few in the past) they would be able to argue better, but I think one point about Muhammed as a warmonger is that "war is the last option"... just looked up this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Views [edit] Muslim View Muslims view that the Muslims fought only when attacked, or in the context of a wider war of self-defense. They argue that Muhammad was the first among the major military figures of history to lay down rules for humane warfare, and that he was scrupulous in limiting the loss of life as much as possible. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in Mizan that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to Muhammad against Divinely specified peoples of his times (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al) as a form of Divine punishment -- for they had persistently denied the truth of Muhammad's mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by Allah through Muhammad, and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam, hence now, the only valid reason for war is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. (jihad)[1][20] [edit] Non-Muslim view Muhammad's critics often hold that the Muslims engaged in wars of aggression, that they caused much bloodshed and suffering, that they imposed Islam at the point of a sword, and that Muhammad's conduct is not an example to be imitated [original research?]. Conversely, other non-Muslim academics believe that Muhammad was a reluctant warrior, such that he disliked fighting except when he believed it to be absolutely necessary.[21] so clearly there could be good grounds for further discussion. While I am not an Islamic expert, I can claim that - opposing to your view - there are grounds to say that Muhammed was not necessarily a "man of war" but merely he had to fight because this was the last option. In any case certainly not adequate that the only possible interpretation of him is as a "warmonger". That's a good base for a nice theological debate, but it's not relevant to this discussion. Christians claim that Jesus is their founder, and even if he isn't, and Paul is the real founder, who abused Jesus words, even then Paul is only changing Judaism into Christianity, and not changing Jesus' religion of hate into a religion of peace (or the other way around). Even if Jesus is not the real founder of christianity, christians (and the violent once in particular) do believe so, and count his words, as written in the gospels, as being the highest revealed authority. at least organized religion, the same could be (I have no Idea, but I gues the principle should apply) said about Islam as well... Not from the perspective of the believer. The believing muslim believes that Muhammed is the prime prophet of Allah. And he believes that the Quran desribes the words and acts of Muhammed. And he believes that Muhammed, in the name of Allah, formed the Caliphat (or the pre-caliphat), also by the use of force. It's not important if Muhammed is the real founder of Islam, and if the stories about him are true or not. What matters here is that the believers, and the violent believers of Islam in particular, believe that those stories are of a key importance. And it only makes sence that they interpret the Quran from the image they from Muhammed Totally pointless and outright insulting, and can only be used for alienating moderate muslims further away. Thus you're saying that the words of non-muslims make moderate muslims, who claim that Islam is peace, change into violent muslims? I am sure that saying to someone that his base belief requires war to promote his beilef (if he himself does not hold that opinion) is not a good way to start a discussion... A question (open question) Are there (many) ex-muslims or atheists, who think that the Quran is a beautiful book, they just don't believe in? I know that many atheists / ex-christians still love the Bible, for all kinds of reasons, but just don't believe that it holds any important information, except cultural information, etc. It appears to me, but I may wrong, and that's why I ask that question, how many non-muslims (and ex-muslims in particular) do consider the Quran to be beautiful and interesting. I have a Quran myself, and I've read a lot in it. I must say that it's quite a boring book, it's hard to read it. I'd never put it in line with the Bible, except that it's the 'holy' book of the Muslims as the Bible is the 'holy' book of the christians (however even that comparison fails). But I'm not the right person to judge between the Quran and the Bible, since I'm biased no idea, and certainly Bible has great literary value from the period, but I know of no "muslim atheists"... at least who were active muslims before, but I am sure that when their societies move towards secularity, there will be scholars who will find the book interesting for other reasons...
	Quote