Sadly, too many people think that’s all there is to this song. At least that’s the way they act.
Oh dear. Sounds bad. I’m not getting your point here, really. Are you saying it’s never been a religion of peace but has always been violent, or that nobody said it even should be peaceful until 15 years ago ?
Your disingenuous behavior is scoring you no points.
You might want to review the posts of poster FXMastermind over the last few weeks and then check his current status.
[ /Moderating ]
EEeeeh, yes and no. I mean, you’re absolutely correct that the whole “HYPOCRITES !” angle is wholly made up, and that anyone ranting against “the religion of peace” is 100% of the time an islamophobic asshole and/or a complete ignorant, no questions asked.
On the other hand, the theoretical operative principle behind Islam is that once everybody is contained within the Dar-al-Islam, there cannot be but everlasting peace because everybody will put subservience to God and the community before individualism and personal interest - so in that respect, it really is a religion whose ultimate goal is peace on Earth, on a very practical level. It’s almost Confucianist in that respect.
But of course, on the gripping hand it’s really no different from every *other *asshole who’s dead certain that, if they were king/queen of the world and everybody thought like 'um they could solve every last one of the Earth’s problems in 5 seconds flat ;). World events certainly belie the notion that Islamic nations/organizations don’t fight against each other and it’s all kumbaya from Muhammad on out.
In which regard they mirror evangelical Christians who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Ironic that Christian fundamentalists have more in common with Wahhabis than they do with Roman Catholics or Anglicans.
Further’n that, he’s the equivalent of somebody who’d confidently assert that the late Fred Phelps and the Lord’s Resistance Army are the essential nature of Christianity, and everyone else up to and including the Pope are just faking it/getting it wrong.
Familiarity might breed contempt, but lack thereof breeds utter lunacy.
I still don’t know what your point is. What is it ?
The point is that you have been asking nonsense questions in different threads and actually starting threads with similar meaningless questions in attempts to get a rise out of other posters. That walks the line of trolling and if you continue you will lose your posting privileges.
[ /Moderating ]
It’s been a very enjoyable to-and-fro :), enjoying the great free speech that is so precious and unavailable to many people.
I remember being at school and being made to follow the state religion. Imagine how bad it is in places that are out and out theocracies ? :eek:
We live in a world where religious people are always trying to assume power and crush dissent and free thought.
But I still don’t get your point about the religion of peace thing.
Your post about it was nonsense.
I pointed out why it was nonsense.
Your response ignored the facts that I pointed out: The phrase was one man’s reaction to the WTC/Pentagon attacks in which he tried to distinguish his beliefs from those of the Wahhabists who launched the attack.
Your “questions” ignored the facts to engage in more nonsense.
JAQing off about how a “religion of peace” should operate is simply a backhanded way to mock Islam and serves no purpose in this thread because it does not address the actual point of the OP.
If you continue JAQing off, I will have to conclude that you are trolling.
There’s a reason Salafists(AKA Wahhabis) are referred to as “puritanical.”
Also the fact that he needed Ramira to explain to him who Khadijjah was doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in his knowledge or understanding of the religion.
his point is that it was very painfully clear that you were trying to provoke for the sake of provoking.
none of us rose to this because it was indeed very obvious.
I still don’t know who this religion of peace guy is supposed to be or why it matters.
But there is no religion of peace, they all are violent. If you want a world of violence, keep being religious. Keep the divides and walls and in groups and out groups and worthies and unworthies and favoured and unfavoured.
Naturally people don’t like their religion to be criticised, they want it to be taken “seriously”. Unfortunately, in the end, apart from the threat of violent retribution, there isn’t much about religion that should be taken seriously.
At my school, too much direct or enthusiastic disrespect of religion would have brought a caning.
Deep down I know you like this idea, although on the surface the pretense may be that that would be so wrong. People being people, even the most apparently peaceful and sensible ones get a satisfaction from seeing people not of their religion suffering.
So no, I don’t believe radical Islam is violent due to culture and not religion, because religious people all support violence in one form or another - with rare exceptions.
OP answered.
Ta 
The moderator explained it quite clearly and in rather uncomplicated language.
-
Then your sarcastic repetition of Islam being the religion of peace was not merely sarcastic; it was intentionally dishonest and you parroted it merely to get a rise out of other posters.
-
Given the wide variety of religious beliefs around the world, many of them with tenets directly contradicting many tenets of the other beliefs, it is quite unlikely that it is religion that is the cause of the violence. The most likely source of the violence is with people being people.
But No, Those *Other People *Must Be Bad!..
The vast majority of personkind are “religious”, in one sense or another. And indeed, many of us are violent. But simply because two things are true does not mean they are connected, much less causative.
Evolutionary psychology suggests a strong link between religion and violence.
There’s more than one moderator who thinks you’re trolling.
Warning issued. Don’t do it again.
Well, our taxes have paid for a lot of non-muslim blowing things up, so the premise is only partially true.
But consider that the list of empires and caliphates from Europe to the Middle East is a long one, and that empires don’t get made by asking nicely. I think we can safely say that violence is built into the religion, and there is a plethora of scriptural and scholarly examples of that - from gender relations to child rearing to law.
As I said, to make a non-violent religion is very very easy, a simple matter of a few unambiguous statements.
I agree with Sam Harris, a fundamentalist Jain would be as harmless as a daffodil, because there is nothing in Jain scripture that can fuel violence.