Is Islam a religion of peace , or is it inherently violent ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ramo
Do the massacres in Gujarat by Hindu nationalists imply that Hinduism is inherently violent?

No, but having a warrior caste might.

[aneeshm]

Having a warrior caste implied that Hindusim needed to defend itself from religions that attempted to eradicate it . Now what religion would that be . . . . . . .

[Atahualpa]

Werna: I think this is because there are a lot of moderate people among christians. People that even don't care so much when it comes to "principles" (I don't know a better word) in christianity such as "no sex before marriage", "no contraceptives",... Some friends of mine regularly go to church, yet they don't care so much when it comes to these harsh rules.
That's why I think catholicism is seen as much less of a threat. I always shiver though when I see the hardcore catholics and their views.
I would describe modern day catholicism as "wolf im schafspelz" (wolf in the fur of a sheep, no sé)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Having a warrior caste implied that Hindusim needed to defend itself from religions that attempted to eradicate it . Now what religion would that be . . . . . . .

Did the kshatriya predate Islam?

Hindu scriptures would seem to indicate this.

[aneeshm]

IIRC , the Kshatriya class was formed and rigidified during the times and conquests of Alexander , to protect Hinduism from external ( and many times internal ) assault . I do not think that the Vedas have a mention of the caste system as a solid , rigid system , shere one cannot change caste . Caste was , IMO , a designation based on your profession , and was not supposed to determine the profession itself .

It continued to exist because it served a purpose in protecting against further threats from outside .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm
IIRC , the Kshatriya class was formed and rigidified during the times and conquests of Alexander , to protect Hinduism from external ( and many times internal ) assault . I do not think that the Vedas have a mention of the caste system as a solid , rigid system , shere one cannot change caste . Caste was , IMO , a designation based on your profession , and was not supposed to determine the profession itself .

It continued to exist because it served a purpose in protecting against further threats from outside .

Wouldn't the Rig Veda seem to contradict this ?

[aneeshm]

Which passage , exactly ?

[Al B. Sure!]

why is it that apolyton is so anti-islam. it's really sickening.

[Whoha]

Is critical discussion of Islam Verboten? any number of people have parroted the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" one size fits all tripe, and you color them with the same brush that you would color the people actually discussing Islam, and the same brush that you would color people like me that are just blatantly trolling.

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Werna: I think this is because there are a lot of moderate people among christians. People that even don't care so much when it comes to "principles" (I don't know a better word) in christianity such as "no sex before marriage", "no contraceptives",... Some friends of mine regularly go to church, yet they don't care so much when it comes to these harsh rules.
That's why I think catholicism is seen as much less of a threat. I always shiver though when I see the hardcore catholics and their views.
I would describe modern day catholicism as "wolf im schafspelz" (wolf in the fur of a sheep, no sé)

But then there are a great many Christians that do follow their rules on Contraception and sex before marriage aren't there?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
why is it that apolyton is so anti-islam. it's really sickening.

Maybe because it has such good spokesmen here?


I know that I'm really eager to be lectured on the virtues of a religon from Albert Speer.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Islam = religion of peace
Arabs = culture of violence

I belive that their exists a layer of ethical and moral norms that runs deeper then religion and which tend to run along ethnic divisions. Everyone picks up these norms from their society regardless of their exposure to any particular religion or lack their of and it incorporates as a core belief at a very early age.

Religius teachings are created with an intent to modify and critique the existing ethical status quo. Jesus and Mohamed weren't working with blank slates they were saying "dont do that thing which is currently the norm". For the most part though religions fail to change a societies core beliefs because people learn from example not from words. All priests become hypocrites who educate another generation of hypocrites.

Religions are esentialy meaningless labels that conseal the underlying cultural core. Historicaly the introduction of a new religion to a group of people has had almost no effect on their behavior as the words of any religion can be bent to justify anything which is adsactly whats done. Only major societal upheaval such as war, ocupation, migration and mixing with another culture can change core cultural belief (this very often happens along with changes in religion which can result in an apearance that religion changes behavior).

The real question becomes: Why is Arab Culture so much more violent then Western Culture?

Answer: Western culture WAS just as violent untill resently. It became much more tolerant ecause of the very even Protestant/Catholic split which precipitated some major internal violence in Western Civ. Neither side could wipe out the other so a stalemate developed. Out of that stalmate the Enligntenment concept of "live and let live" grew and was incorporated as a core belief. No such equivilent process has yet happened in Arab culture. What Cristianity and Islam puport to "teach" is totaly irrelivent, they only apear to be significant because +80% of each culture is a member of the dominent religion. If every single Cristian converted to Islam and every Muslim to Cristianity it wouldn't change the situation one bit.

[Ramo]

No , they imply that that mob which did the killing was childish , uneducated , poor , mostly unemployed , and foolish .

So just maybe, violence is an aspect of people and their specific circumstances, and not a religion that a billion people belong to.

This is the third time I am saying this - look to the holy books for the principles driving a religion

Which is why you brought up 16th century conflicts between Vijaynagar and the Deccan states...

Yes, look at the principles of the religions. There is a concept of religious self-defence in Islam, part of the concept of Jihad, but that is an aspect of most major religions - including Hinduism (as molly pointed out, look at the concept of the warrior caste).

[Ramo]

No, you'd need an established pattern of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years of such behavior that continues to this day to make such a statement. You'd need to have world wide strife in which the group in question can not get along with anyone at all, not even various sub groups of the main one.

It's a pretty damn ignorant thing to say that Muslims can't get along with people of other religions or lack thereof at all.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Ramo

No, you'd need an established pattern of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years of such behavior that continues to this day to make such a statement. You'd need to have world wide strife in which the group in question can not get along with anyone at all, not even various sub groups of the main one.

It's a pretty damn ignorant thing to say that Muslims can't get along with people of other religions or lack thereof at all.

Well you said it, I thought we were talking about hinduism

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Islam = religion of peace
Arabs = culture of violence

I belive that their exists a layer of ethical and moral norms that runs deeper then religion and which tend to run along ethnic divisions. Everyone picks up these norms from their society regardless of their exposure to any particular religion or lack their of and it incorporates as a core belief at a very early age.

Religius teachings are created with an intent to modify and critique the existing ethical status quo. Jesus and Mohamed weren't working with blank slates they were saying "dont do that thing which is currently the norm". For the most part though religions fail to change a societies core beliefs because people learn from example not from words. All priests become hypocrites who educate another generation of hypocrites.

Religions are esentialy meaningless labels that conseal the underlying cultural core. Historicaly the introduction of a new religion to a group of people has had almost no effect on their behavior as the words of any religion can be bent to justify anything which is adsactly whats done. Only major societal upheaval such as war, ocupation, migration and mixing with another culture can change core cultural belief (this very often happens along with changes in religion which can result in an apearance that religion changes behavior).

The real question becomes: Why is Arab Culture so much more violent then Western Culture?

Answer: Western culture WAS just as violent untill resently. It became much more tolerant ecause of the very even Protestant/Catholic split which precipitated some major internal violence in Western Civ. Neither side could wipe out the other so a stalemate developed. Out of that stalmate the Enligntenment concept of "live and let live" grew and was incorporated as a core belief. No such equivilent process has yet happened in Arab culture. What Cristianity and Islam puport to "teach" is totaly irrelivent, they only apear to be significant because +80% of each culture is a member of the dominent religion. If every single Cristian converted to Islam and every Muslim to Cristianity it wouldn't change the situation one bit.

Brilliant post and I think you win the award for answering the question originally posed.