Does Poll Show Islam Not Religion of Peace?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


I think that fourteen hundred years of violence is enough evidence for me.

As opposed to how many years of Christian violence ?

" Yet an ominous tradition was already established: Christianity, as soon as it became official, had begun to persecute Christians. "

Referring to suppression and persecution of the Donatist Christians in North Africa by non-Donatist Christians.

from 'The Climax of Rome' by Michael Grant.

"There is a persecution of unrighteousness, which the impious inflict upon the church of Christ; and there is a righteous persecution, which the church of Christ inflicts on the impious... Moreover she persecutes in the spirit of love, they in the spirit of wrath."

St Augustine of Hippo, Letter 185, 417 AD




God is love indeed.

[Az]

dude, if you have to dig for before 1500 years ago, you're not making a very good argument.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
dude, if you have to dig for before 1500 years ago, you're not making a very good argument.

I'm just highlighting Christianity's ancient traditions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well just to feed the troll, it does indicate a portion of the population that would be willing to materially support such actions be it through providing the explosives to simply providing them a place to plan and make the bombs.

A lot of Irish in the US materially supported the IRA. On that count alone it makes Islam no more violent than Christianity.

[Wiglaf]

Bull****. The IRA fought in the name of nationalism, not god. The IRA never killed on the scale of Muslim terrorists (or 9/11 alone, for that matter). [http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/...men_mosul.html]

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Take a poll of Christians pre-Crusade and you'd get poll numbers like the ones above.

Reformations

Originally posted by Wiglaf


The protestant reformation ensured Christians do not act like barbarians anymore, as they did in the 13th century. Prior to the 1500s reformation the church, it could be argued, was flawed in large part beause the violence was Church-sanctioned. (whether the crusades were morally legitimate is its own debate, but most would say no)

This is similar to the terrorism we see today (except terrorism is worse) that many Islamist clerics sanction. Therefore, they need a similar reformation, especially in light of these polls.

Typical protestant American superstitions.
Crusqdes were something a bit new, even in western Christianity: and in the eqst, church was even more peqceful. Even being q soldier fighting in a defensive war against infidels, You hqd to abstain from communion for " years after killing someone. Of course, the example of Islam was tempting and one emperor, Nicefor Focas I think, wanted to treat soldiers that found death in a war against infidels as martyrs/ but the church opposed him.
Not that cqtholic church was completely peaceful or crusades zere completely justified, but reformqtion did not chqnge q thing; was it not a start of religious wars in Europe? Were there not massacres on both sides? Have protestants not killed and burned catholics on stakes or engaged in witchhounts?
Reformation was a great mistake.

Anyway; what sort of reformation would Islam have to undergo to become peaceful? Muhammad himself was a leader of agressive state, he himself led conquests and sometimes praised atrocities. He was not different than any other leader of his time; perhaps better than many, but he and caliphs were warmongers. Christianity originally spread peacefully; only centuries later it accepted brutal politics not long ago used against itself. Great initial success of Islam were due to political force, or violence if You like. The time of original persecution of Muslims did not last long; You can not get rid of the part of life of Muhammad that happened after He was invited to Yathrib, even if You can get rid of history of the caliphs.
By saying that there should be some division between politics and religion You actually say that Muhammad did something wrong: and how could He?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson




Typical protestant American superstitions.
Crusqdes were something a bit new, even in western Christianity: and in the eqst, church was even more peqceful. Even being q soldier fighting in a defensive war against infidels, You hqd to abstain from communion for " years after killing someone. Of course, the example of Islam was tempting and one emperor, Nicefor Focas I think, wanted to treat soldiers that found death in a war against infidels as martyrs/ but the church opposed him.

Not before the Abbott Amaurd-Arnold, the progenitor of the inqisitors, quiped his famous line: "Kill them all and let God sort it out in the end". Your own country was once host to the "Moravians", a Calvinistic group that was quite prominent in Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and Posnan in the 16th century. In fact, it was the attempted suppression of the group that initiated the Thirty Years War. They were stamped out in the Hapsburg domains, then driven out of Poland, then expelled from Bavaria. Out of a half million only a few thousand remained to settle in Salem, North Carolina, where a restored village exists today as a shrine to their trials.

Not that cqtholic church was completely peaceful or crusades zere completely justified, but reformqtion did not chqnge q thing; was it not a start of religious wars in Europe? Were there not massacres on both sides? Have protestants not killed and burned catholics on stakes or engaged in witchhounts?
Reformation was a great mistake.

Anyway; what sort of reformation would Islam have to undergo to become peaceful? Muhammad himself was a leader of agressive state, he himself led conquests and sometimes praised atrocities. He was not different than any other leader of his time; perhaps better than many, but he and caliphs were warmongers. Christianity originally spread peacefully; only centuries later it accepted brutal politics not long ago used against itself. Great initial success of Islam were due to political force, or violence if You like. The time of original persecution of Muslims did not last long; You can not get rid of the part of life of Muhammad that happened after He was invited to Yathrib, even if You can get rid of history of the caliphs.
By saying that there should be some division between politics and religion You actually say that Muhammad did something wrong: and how could He?

In the Koran it is said that the Greater Jihad is a man's struggle to purify his won soul. The struggle to spread the word is considered secondary and was termed the Lesser Jihad by Mohammed. Islam needs a great religious leader, perhaps a Sufi, to rise and call the people away from the corrupting influence of violent causes. To do so he will have to prove to the people that the current trend of suicide martyrdom is at odds with the Prophet's teachings. I suspect that a major internicene Islamic war will be required before this is possible.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Bull****. The IRA fought in the name of nationalism, not god. The IRA never killed on the scale of Muslim terrorists (or 9/11 alone, for that matter).

Since a fair number of Irish are Catholics it is reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of Irish that supported the IRA were Catholics. Nationalism or not, you have a bunch of Christians supporting the use of terrorism to end the British occupation of Northern Ireland.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
[http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/...men_mosul.html]

If you want to count it that way, we can start by the various crusades, inquisitions, witch-hunts, and all sorts of interesting stuff.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Islam needs a great religious leader, perhaps a Sufi, to rise and call the people away from the corrupting influence of violent causes.

I think the Koran is just used by reckless cynic opportunists as a tool to influence the mass.

Several years ago a number of Islamic scholars denounced using the Koran to justify attacks on unarmed civilians.

However for people who have nothing else to lose it is very easy for them to resort to extremism as a mean in their struggle against (perceived) injustices. To many of them death isn't a worse alternative to a miserable life, and they surely can believe that their deaths brings a better future to their people.

[Wiglaf]

Since a fair number of Irish are Catholics it is reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of Irish that supported the IRA were Catholics. Nationalism or not, you have a bunch of Christians supporting the use of terrorism to end the British occupation of Northern Ireland.

Plenty of Christians also steal cable. What's your point? The religion does not foster their behavior.

The pope of course condemned the IRA; the IRA has done a fraction of the damage that muslim terorrists have; and although Christianity has a tainted past, it has evolved (long ago) away from the barbarity Islam is still victim to.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Bull****. The IRA fought in the name of nationalism, not god.

Oh that's all right then- I'm sure their victims will be pleased. Especially the Protestant ones.


Oh, and although the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland could have excommunicated the I.R.A. , or used the threat of excommunication, they chose not to do so- even though Irish women who wanted to have abortions and not murder fifteen people in the process with a landmine say, were threatened with excommunication.

Religion and nationalism- twice the stupidity in one movement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Bashing any legitimate religion is wrong,

No problem, since all religions are illegitimate!

[chequita guevara]

Some peaceful Christian burned down a women's clinic in West Palm Beach last week.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I think the Koran is just used by reckless cynic opportunists as a tool to influence the mass.

Several years ago a number of Islamic scholars denounced using the Koran to justify attacks on unarmed civilians.

However for people who have nothing else to lose it is very easy for them to resort to extremism as a mean in their struggle against (perceived) injustices. To many of them death isn't a worse alternative to a miserable life, and they surely can believe that their deaths brings a better future to their people.

It's not enough for them to get together once and issue a denouncement. Someone is going to have to gather together a group committed to a sustained campaign against the use of the Koran as an excuse for violence.

[Bereta_Eder]

Well of course if you see it through your own perspective, Islam is a religion of terrorism. But if you see it from their perspective Christianity is a religion of terrorism too.
Let's only take Iraq and nothing else because it's recent and ongoing. According to information the casualties there are in the whereabouts of 25,000. That's 25,000 dead and pretty much of all ages, groups etc. Who did this? If you want to count it based on religion then it's Christians who did this.

Some say well the IRA has or had a nationalist agenda stemming from a desire to self liberate. This is also called national-liberation war if it didn't use terrorist tactis. I agree the IRA had a nationalist agenda. And some may say the Islamists have a religious fundamentalist agenda. I also agree with that and with that distinction.

However I'll say again that sometimes people rally under one banner. They have to do this or the "movement" won't go anywhere. This banner must have the potential to rally them or most of them under neath it. Sometimes this is communism other times it's Islamic fundamentalism. The point though is that underneath this comfy all encompasing banner they rally under, the goals may be not very different than an effort to liberate/thow out a yock, as they see it.
So the aparatus may be different but the goals may converge, even between IRA and Islamic fundamentalists and other terrorist groups.