If radical Islam is violent due to culture and not religion

[A_isha]

@Robert163

So, So what? If you come from the position, as do I, that war is wrong, then a declaration of war is immaterial.

War is sometimes justified. Particularly against people who attack you, break peace treaties you make with them, and attack you again.

A position of pure pacifism where you aren’t supposed to engage in a war even if attacked first is certainly a laudable one (in the abstract, at least), but judging everyone by that standard because they believe in a just defensive war and you don’t is ridiculous. Especially if you call them nothing less than immoral and evil for not adhering to the same sort of strict pacifism.

So? Nothing required that he or any other person ever travel to Mecca. Nothing. A religious proclamation is not a requirement.

Yes, it is. Especially considering your arguments based on the importance of spirituality.

[Robert163]

@A_isha

War is sometimes justified. Particularly against people who attack you, break peace treaties you make with them, and attack you again.

A position of pure pacifism where you aren’t supposed to engage in a war even if attacked first is certainly a laudable one (in the abstract, at least), but judging everyone by that standard because they believe in a just defensive war and you don’t is ridiculous. Especially if you call them nothing less than immoral and evil for not adhering to the same sort of strict pacifism.

Yes, it is. Especially considering your arguments based on the importance of spirituality.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that, at the time of the 12 deaths, no one was actually attacking Mohamed or his followers!!! The 12 deaths occurred when he and his forces invaded Mecca. This is a point on which you seem to be incredibly myopic. If your point was that there had been back and forth fighting - in the past - well someone has to be mature enough to say, enough is enough, we will not retaliate, for the sake of peace we will abandon this conflict.

At this point, I do not see any point in further conversation in this particular part of this particular topic. I think it would be a cycle of disagreement that would not lead to anything.

What do you think about Mohammed’s support of the death penalty, death by stoning or beheading, for breaking major tenets of his religion. Please don’t respond by saying they have a chance to repent and change or they must have 5 witnesses against them or whatever. If a man wants to have gay sex and be gay and keep being gay, well, the penalty for this is death right?

[Miller]

@Robert163

Wow. One can be very spiritual and still commit Rape, Murder, Genocide, Slavery and Theft and still be spiritual. Wow. Can you commit these actions and still be a decent moral person?

Is this another one of those situations where you don’t know the common definition of words, and mistake that for winning a debate?

“Spiritualism” is a belief in the real existence of spirits. If you believe the spirits want you to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, you’re a spiritualist. If you believe the spirits want you to cut out the heart of a virgin, you’re also a spiritualist. Defining something as “spiritual” tells you nothing about whether that thing is good or bad.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that, at the time of the 12 deaths, no one was actually attacking Mohamed or his followers!!! The 12 deaths occurred when he and his forces invaded Mecca. This is a point on which you seem to be incredibly myopic. If your point was that there had been back and forth fighting - in the past - well someone has to be mature enough to say, enough is enough, we will not retaliate, for the sake of peace we will abandon this conflict.

Again, do you think FDR was morally wrong and to blame for US Army soldiers killing German Army soldiers when the German Army soldiers fired on them after Allied forces crossed into Germany? After all, the US Army was invading Germany at that point, right? And all that back and forth fighting between the two during the war was in the past.

Should the US have just stopped at the border of Germany and and said “enough is enough, we will not retaliate, for the sake of peace we will abandon this conflict” as soon as France was freed?

What do you think about Mohammed’s support of the death penalty, death by stoning or beheading, for breaking major tenets of his religion. Please don’t respond by saying they have a chance to repent and change or they must have 5 witnesses against them or whatever. If a man wants to have gay sex and be gay and keep being gay, well, the penalty for this is death right?

What do you think about the Bible’s support of the death penalty for breaking major tenets of the religion or for homosexuality?

[Robert163]

@Miller

Is this another one of those situations where you don’t know the common definition of words, and mistake that for winning a debate?

“Spiritualism” is a belief in the real existence of spirits. If you believe the spirits want you to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, you’re a spiritualist. If you believe the spirits want you to cut out the heart of a virgin, you’re also a spiritualist. Defining something as “spiritual” tells you nothing about whether that thing is good or bad.

Hmmm… this is a most interesting set of semantics. I’m sure you’d win a gold star at the debate club. And another gold star for “good effort”.

[Robert163]

@A_isha

Again, do you think FDR was morally wrong and to blame for US Army soldiers killing German Army soldiers when the German Army soldiers fired on them after Allied forces crossed into Germany? After all, the US Army was invading Germany at that point, right? And all that back and forth fighting between the two during the war was in the past.

Should the US have just stopped at the border of Germany and and said “enough is enough, we will not retaliate, for the sake of peace we will abandon this conflict” as soon as France was freed?

Yeah, like I said, no use discussing it. If you want me to clarify my position, all you need do is reread my posts where I explained it quite clearly 3 or 4 times.

What do you think about the Bible’s support of the death penalty for breaking major tenets of the religion or for homosexuality?

I think you are using it as a excuse to draw the conversation away from Mohammed and his orders for the death penalty for breaking the major tenets of his religion.

EDIT: I am going to work. Will talk with you later…

Despite our disagreements I am glad to talk to you at least. have a nice day.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

I think you are using it as a excuse to draw the conversation away from Mohammed and his orders for the death penalty for breaking the major tenets of his religion.

My own personal view is to disagree with your assertions about what Muhammad commanded, but that’s irrelevant to my point, which is that even if if were true that Muhammad and the Qur’an say all those things it doesn’t make Islam the Worst Religion on the Planet, it merely puts Islam at the exact same level as Judaism and Christianity (which also instruct the very same things).

EDIT: I am going to work. Will talk with you later…

Despite our disagreements I am glad to talk to you at least. have a nice day.

My pleasure. Have a good day at work!

[MaxTheVool]

@A_isha

Muhammad preached sabr (forbearance and patience) towards tormentors, and when war between the Meccans and his community of Medina was unavoidable, Muhammad carried out as bloodless a war as was able to be waged during that time and place, taking and freeing prisoners instead of engaging in wholesale slaughter. Even when preparing to enter Mecca, Muhammad ordered his armies to refrain from any fighting unless the Meccans attacked. And, when his forces finally took Mecca from the polytheists, there were not only almost no casualties on the Meccan side (12 killed in a small skirmish in one part of the city), he expressly forbade any massacres or other reprisals against the populace.

I know basically nothing about this issue. But I’m moderately skeptical of this account, because it sounds so whitewashed. This certainly sounds exactly like you would expect to read in a history book written by the victors.

Can anyone comment on what knowledgeable secular historians say about this topic?

[Robert163]

@A_isha

My own personal view is to disagree with your assertions about what Muhammad commanded, but that’s irrelevant to my point, which is that even if if were true that Muhammad and the Qur’an say all those things it doesn’t make Islam the Worst Religion on the Planet, it merely puts Islam at the exact same level as Judaism and Christianity (which also instruct the very same things).

Yes, except that, Jesus never lead a counter assault that killed 12 people. Jesus didn’t own slaves. Jesus did not have a sex slave. Jesus was not a thief. Jesus did not command that adultery be punished with death by stoning, he explicitly said the opposite, the adulteress who was about to be put to death by stoning, Jesus intervened and said do not do this, he that he who is without guilt can cast the first stone.

So, no, not quite the same.

If you want to say Moses and Mohammed were more or less the same that is fine by me.

[elucidator]

And Jesus did not preach to the Catholics to murder the Cathars. But they did. Nor did He preach that the Protestant English should starve the Catholic Irish. But they did. And so it went. So either the foundational scripture of a religion is crucial, even determinative, to its practice, or it is not. History would indicate that it is not.

Jesus taught that pursuit of wealth is not a good thing, the Prosperity Gospel preachers have found a loophole, big enough for a camel to pass through, along with its baggage. Jesus taught pacifism, a notion largely absent from the Christian practice in the world.

And while I may be attracted to the notion that Jesus could heal the sick, I’ll still go to the doctor and take his prescription, because the Lord helps those who help themselves. It’s easier, and Mary didn’t raise no fools.

So, if your premise is that the Muslims are unique in their adherence to the written scripture of their faith, you should tell us why.

And please remember that our real enemies, the ones who truly do hate us, use an alleged “War on Islam” as their most potent recruiting tool. Perhaps before you offer them your assistance, you should consider that. And then not do it.

And don’t forget that Muslim cabbie in New York who reported a prospective terrorist to the FBI, and may very well have prevented a horror. All over New York, people were saying “Who was that mosqued man, I wanted to thank him!”.

“Rebuke them not, for they who are not against us are with us”. Scripture. Mark, Matthew, Fred. One of them.

[A_isha]

@MaxTheVool

I know basically nothing about this issue. But I’m moderately skeptical of this account, because it sounds so whitewashed. This certainly sounds exactly like you would expect to read in a history book written by the victors.

Can anyone comment on what knowledgeable secular historians say about this topic?

There are, essentially, no historical sources outside of the traditional Muslim accounts. Knowledgeable secular historians, therefore, tend to take those accounts as given (though sometimes they’ll try to sort through various conflicting traditional versions to try and piece together the most “reliable” version they can).

A few scholars have a “revisionist” take on early Islamic history, ranging from rejecting some of the traditional accounts to rejecting those accounts entirely (though the latter has always been a minority and has since fallen out of favor).

See Wikipedia’s entry on Historiography of Early Islam for more.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

Yes, except that, Jesus never lead a counter assault that killed 12 people. Jesus didn’t own slaves. Jesus did not have a sex slave. Jesus was not a thief. Jesus did not command that adultery be punished with death by stoning, he explicitly said the opposite, the adulteress who was about to be put to death by stoning, Jesus intervened and said do not do this, he that he who is without guilt can cast the first stone.

So, no, not quite the same.

If you want to say Moses and Mohammed were more or less the same that is fine by me.

And since Moses is a major figure in Christianity and the Old Testament is still part of the Christian Bible, nothing I said is incorrect.

[elucidator]

Well, sorta kinda. For a better explication that I could ever muster, I refer you to Bible and Sword, by the esteemed Barbara Tuchman, famed for Guns of August. She delves into how the Old Testament became more a part of the English speaking world of Christianity. For a very long time, it was not a popular notion that Christianity derived from Judaism.

(He said, showing off his droll gift for understatement…)

[Robert163]

@elucidator

And Jesus did not preach to the Catholics to murder the Cathars. But they did. Nor did He preach that the Protestant English should starve the Catholic Irish. But they did. And so it went. So either the foundational scripture of a religion is crucial, even determinative, to its practice, or it is not. History would indicate that it is not.

Jesus taught that pursuit of wealth is not a good thing, the Prosperity Gospel preachers have found a loophole, big enough for a camel to pass through, along with its baggage. Jesus taught pacifism, a notion largely absent from the Christian practice in the world.

And while I may be attracted to the notion that Jesus could heal the sick, I’ll still go to the doctor and take his prescription, because the Lord helps those who help themselves. It’s easier, and Mary didn’t raise no fools.

So, if your premise is that the Muslims are unique in their adherence to the written scripture of their faith, you should tell us why.

I find it odd that I should have to explain it to you or defend the point. As you said, Jesus - did not - call for violence, he called for the opposite. Moses and Mohammed both advocated and practiced violence. That is a significant difference, even if yo do not want to acknowledge it. Christians taking it upon themselves to add to the text in ways that contradict the text, that is not the same as the text actually calling for violence.

The reason why I make the point at all is the idea that fervent believers are going to follow the original text and actions of their primary figurehead more closely than marginal members of the religion. So, if violence is advocate in the text, or in action by the leader, that is a very very very bad example to set.

[Robert163]

@A_isha

And since Moses is a major figure in Christianity and the Old Testament is still part of the Christian Bible, nothing I said is incorrect.

No, because, Jesus specifically forbids violence. Your explanation is superficially plausible but in actuality, wrong.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

Christians taking it upon themselves to add to the text in ways that contradict the text, that is not the same as the text actually calling for violence.

The violence is in the text.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

No, because, Jesus specifically forbids violence.

Not really, no, as has been pointed out in this thread already. Jesus said some peaceful things, and some violent things.

[Robert163]

@A_isha

Not really, no, as has been pointed out in this thread already. Jesus said some peaceful things, and some violent things.

He may of made some analogies or metaphors that implied some violent imagery but that is not the same as actually commanding violence.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

He may of made some analogies or metaphors that implied some violent imagery but that is not the same as actually commanding violence.

What did Jesus do to the moneylenders in the Temple?

[Robert163]

@A_isha

What did Jesus do to the moneylenders in the Temple?

He chased them from the temple with a whip

What did he not do? Here is the list of things he did not do:

Kill them
Steal from them
Rape then
Enslave them
Stone them to death
Cut off their head
Cut off their hand