Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Hey, even after our 30 second brawl today, Extra Medium is polite, thoughtful, and more interesting than many. I do not wish for him (her?) to be side lined or shut up. Sometimes it takes awhile to figure out where a person is coming from and how s/he expresses himself/herself so that we don't assign unintended meaning to his/her comments. I was guilty of that earlier, and will think twice before jumping to further conclusions......well think once anyway.....okay, no promises, but I will try.

Extra Medium, I could not agree with you more wholeheartedly than when you write:

"It gave me this bit of a sick feeling in my stomach.

"I could just so easily see how someone could take a question like that, and turn it into:

"All Muslims are violent fanatics!, etc."

I think that many people here were motivated by another thread which was active at the time that this thread began, in which some of our members had contended that Islam is an essentially violent doctrine, with the unstated implication that the same is not true of christianity. Hence, the focus on peaceful as opposed to warlike nations.

As for your remark about blacks, i think it gets right to the heart of the newly minted irrational prejudice against Muslims. I have frequently noted to others in conversations that those who contend that their resentment against blacks arises from the treatment they have allegedly received at the hands of blacks are being dishonest about their racism. The racist gets beaten up and robbed by a white man, and responds: "Hey, that sonuvabitch robbed me!" But when the same person is beaten up and robbed by a black man, he responds: "See, them n!ggers are all the same, they're all violent."

I see much the same type of attitude developing toward Muslims.

Who was that directed to Setanta?

Read it again.

I don't know of ANY "Buddhist nations", or nations that are predominently Buddhist, that practice infanticide. The two most prominent nations where this vile practice is relatively common are: PRC and India, neither of which currently have large Buddhist populations.

Ash, i think EM's rather pointed example was given to show where such a discussion might lead, as opposed to any serious contention that Buddhists routinely practice infanticide.

Almost certainly, but there are always folks out there who will take the most outrageous remark as fact. The thread started out with a poorly designed premise, but I thought we had risen above that many posts back. Sometimes I wonder if people ever bother to read even a portion of the previous posts before rushing into print. I post Seldom before I've reviewed previous postings, and given some thought as to what might add to our overall understanding of the topic. It takes a bit more time to read, to think and then carefully write so as to best represent the thought.

Asherman,

Yes, my question re: Buddhists was rhetorical. I did not mean to imply Buddhists engage in any such practice more than anyone else. Most Buddhists that I know of don't even want to kill animals, let alone humans. Apologies.

***

Here's where I was coming from on my posts:
I read the entire thread. I read the original question. Then I read Timberlandko's immediate response to the original question, which seemed to answer the the question well. Enough said, I thought. Then, an interesting thing happened: other debates started. Embers smoldering in the fire.

Some posters came on, claiming that Christianity is a quite peaceful religion, while some other religions (Islam?) are not.

And the tone some of it began to take is "my religion is better than your religion." Or "if I read my religion a particular way, its better than yours."
And there was a challenge to "find one example where Jesus advocated violence."

I guess the original post of:
"Are there any peaceful muslim nations?"
coupled with
"True Christianity is peaceful. Find me one example where Jesus advocated violence."

Reading that combination, I felt compelled to speak up.
The posters just seemed a bit too convinced that there were no peaceful muslim nations, and, that Christianity is always very peaceful.
***
I was listening to talk radio the other day. The gist of one of guest's messages was:
"We must do something about those fanatics who want to start a religious war. For some reason they think God sanctions everything they are doing. Why do they always have to talk about God being on their side?"

Okay, whatever, I thought. Then, unbelievably, the guest ended his segment with these words: "God Bless the USA!"

The irony was devastating. After all, everyone knows, God is on our side. Why can't the rest of the world see this?
(this last comment isn't directed toward anyone I debated with today...)

Those are all very good points, Extra Medium. In fact, in the thread to which i alluded, and which i suggest tempered many of the responses here, one of the members stated that she would start a thread on the topic of the "relative violence" of christianity as opposed to Islam.

Her method was simple, and was specifically to ask if Jesus had ever advocated violence. Which of course, does not address the issue of the relative historical violence of christian cultures as opposed to muslim cultures. For whatever the intent of this thread was, if it results in a discussion of religious bigotry, and the danger of branding all muslims as irrational and violent, i believe it will have done good service.

You have stumbled upon the very pitfall of religion. It creates social tension. Modern religion was meant to be on a personal level to promote morality and explain the world around you. However it was perverted by many as a barrier (similar to race, political parties, etc...) between people. Sure on a singular basis religions get along fine but when we move towards masses of followers of different religions, there is much tension. Just look at the middle east.

I don't mind being named as the "she" Setanta alludes to here.

I did find myself in an icky position of seeming to be discussing "my religion is better than yours"--and this was not my intention. Please throw in Buddhism or animism or any other religion you can think of... I did a bit of studying re Buddhism, and find no fault with it. It doesn't condone or practice violence. If one would proffer that Buddhism is a peaceful religion, I would agree wholeheartedly. I've incorporated some Buddhist practices in my 'religion'. Animism, I don't know much about... it is the belief that every natural object has a soul. This seems very thoughtful to me...

I've also been reading hadiths and excerpts from the Koran, and find it to be violent and scary; more of a cult. I wanted to discuss it, and thought comparing Christ's example and teaching to those of Mohammad would be the fairest comparison of the two religions.

Of course violence has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity and Islam... That is a given, and neither religion should be characterized by extremists in either religion.

My attempt is to examine the teachings and writings of the focal figures in these religions--Christ and Mohammad--and conclude from that alone, what followers of them find as their purposed direction.

I have sincerely appreciated all responders, who have attempted to join this discussion.

I would no more brand all muslims than I would all Christians or Jews...but I won't shrink from criticism of Mohammad, or the Koran.

In that case, Sophia, you cannot ignore the violence and bigotry of the Old Testament, which has been the backbone of christian dogma long before the current Jesus cult arose, and continues to be central to the creed of fundamentalist christians. Christianity has no less of a befouled doctrine than does Islam. I continue to assert that you are seeing what you want to see, as opposed to looking at this comparison objectively.

I am curious.
Where do you see this "backbone" manifested today?
And do you see no difference between what is preached and practiced by "fundamentalist christians" and what is preached and practiced Muslim cultists?

I see the "backbone" manifested in the scriptural choices of the religious opportunists who preach on the television. You offer me a choice between fundamentalist christians and muslim "cultists"--that is apples to oranges. I see no difference between extreme christian cults (such as that which produced, and later harbored the abortion clinic bomber, Eric Rudolph) and extreme muslim cults, nor for that matter, the extremists of the Jewish Defense League here in the U.S. in the 1970's (can't say if they're still in business), nor the extremist Orthodox Serbs . . .

A rose by any other name . . .

Feel free to have your discussion of Bibles v. Korans, and comparisons between extremists in different religions.

I've already had plenty of those discussions, so it's rather cut and dried--and boring, now, to me.

If anyone can find examples of Christ inciting violence or advocating it--to compare to Mohammad's pedophilia, calls to murder and such, please show it.

Setanta-- When you say I see what I want to see--I think that is more appropriately assigned to you.

I agree that violence has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity... I agree that the Bible has violent passages... YOU won't seem to agree that Christ never advocated violence, as Mohammad did.

And, Setanta, for one as learned as you, this quote is rather odd.

Setanta wrote:
In that case, Sophia, you cannot ignore the violence and bigotry of the Old Testament, which has been the backbone of christian dogma long before the current Jesus cult arose, and continues to be central to the creed of fundamentalist christians. Christianity has no less of a befouled doctrine than does Islam. I continue to assert that you are seeing what you want to see, as opposed to looking at this comparison objectively.
-----
How can the backbone of Christian dogma precede Christ? The "Jesus cult" IS Christianity. Christ IS Christianity. Any thing that sprang up around Him, or before Him, is not.

You seem to think I am smearing all Muslims due to extremists in their ranks. NOT SO. I am saying the reason we suffer SO many Muslim extremists is directly due to the writings and teachings of Mohammad.

The principal author of Islam raped, murdered, was anti-Semitic, fomented violence against women, Muslims trying to leave the faith, non-Muslims... He is the guy Muslims look to to learn how they hould live.

The principal author or focal person/being of Christianity was Christ. If His testament to the world included rape of children, murder, hatred of non-Christians, any of this vile stuff--then I wouldn't draw distinctions with Mohammad--nor would I submit myself to belief in any 'savior' or 'prophet' who did such things.

Why do you want to avoid a comparative look at Mohammad and Christ?

At this point the discussion becomes rather silly. As Sofia pointed out, all one has to do is compare what we know of the life and teachings of Mohammed to what we know of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth to be able draw a clear distinction. The most compelling negative difference is that the Christian martyr says "I will die for what I believe" while the Islamic fundamentalist martyr says "You will die for what I believe". Recognizing this fact in no way condemns all Christians as fanatical nuts or all Muslims as terrorists.

To make an assertion that Christianity produced and/or condoned the abortion clinic bomber, one must also then conclude that liberal environmentalism produced and/or condoned the Unibomber.

"The most compelling negative difference is that the Christian martyr says "I will die for what I believe" while the Islamic fundamentalist martyr says "You will die for what I believe".

I believe you're right.

No, that is not all that one has to do. It is what one wishes to do, if one is bent on creating a false impression that Islam is a violent creed, as opposed to the pacific, peace-loving christians. Excuse me, with the stench of the gore of uncounted tens of millions of victims of the christians in my nose, i need to go somewhere and retch.

Sofia, you display a profound ignorance of the origins and dogma of Protestant sects, which represent the majority of christians in the United States. Most American christians practice doctrines deriving, nearly or more remotely, from Calvinism. Apart from the Lutherans and the Anglicans, which are Protestant sects which did not fall far from the tree, the main Protestant sects based their dogma on the entire bible, with an emphasis on the old testament. From the Dutch Reform to the Congregationalists and the "Church of God," these sects have hewed to the line of a special covenant with god, as exemplified by John Winthrop's "shining city on the hill" speech before he arrived in Massachusetts Bay.

The "Jesus cult" to which i refer is the phenomenon of the substituion of Jesus specifically as the conduit to salvation, for god in general. The early Protestants did not describe any necessary personal realtionship to "Jesus" as the means to salvation--rather, they took their creed from the old testament, and required adherence to their interpretation of the covenant with the god of the old testament.

You believe what you like--when it comes to slaughtering the innocents, no one can hold a candle to the christians.

What an extremely odd point of view.
You appear to hold the belief that Christians are currently engaged in slaughtering innocents - by the tens of millions??
There is a very large difference between the present and the past.
Unless you want to hold the populations of various cultures and creeds responsible for the actions of their predecessors, your view of Christianity is absurd.
Are you responsible for the actions of whatever nation or culture you belong to perpetrated 100 years ago?
Are today's Germans to be held accountable for the Holocaust, not to mention all of WWII?
Are today's Russians responsible for the atrocities of the Soviet Union?
Are today's Americans responsible for slavery and the subjugation of the Indians?
There are very large, very active, very diverse, very widespread sects of Islam today that preach and attempt to practice world domination; Jihad and murdering anyone they feel that it is useful to murder.
There are extremely few Christians who believe or practice such atrocities.
Christianity has reformed in terms of killing for Christ.
Islam has not.

I'd be interested to know what those of our members from Croatia and Bosnia think of this contention of yours--you know, those who benefited from the tender mercies of the Orthodox Serbs? This contention might also seem odd to the victims of the Provos and the UDF in Ulster, as well. The victims of the bombings by Eric Rudolph, of course, are few. Fortunately, he was taken into custody before he could bomb any more abortion clinics. Say . . . where'd ya find those nifty blinders yer wearin'?