53
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:02 am
Quote:
Judaism does not condemn non-Jews to hell. It is not concerned with the afterlife for most non-Jews because it is the religion for Jews.


ok accept your superior understanding. But my point is that God promised exclusivity to three sets of people, which in anyone's book (or should that be Book?) is a recipe for trouble.

Ibn

I really do believe that monotheism is one of the worst ideas mankind has ever had. Why not live and let live, why the need to insist the other lot have got it wrong?

But I was being ironic in my post.
0 Replies
 
dauer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:22 am
Steve, perhaps I was not clear. A non-Jew is not denied an afterlife. I just found this article on the differences between Judaism and Christianity if you are interested.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/co/comparing_and_contrasting_judaism_and_christianity.html

I would reccomend the entire article which is quite informative.

Exclusivity in Judaism means being bound to extra and sacred commandments. The bar is just raised for us. But their are enough admonitions within Judaism, even biblically, that this is not for our sake, lest we think we're better than others.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:46 am
good link dauer, thanks

that'll teach me to be flippant eh?
0 Replies
 
Ibn kumuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:43 pm
I get you, Steve.

--Ibn
0 Replies
 
millaj
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 02:38 pm
QKid wrote:
portal,

Can u show me the verses from the Quran where it is so violent? The ones u are talking about on this post. I want to see that you make statements with its evidence. Or else, everyone should believe me when I say I ate breakfast with Elvis at my home.
war is not relevant islam
westsidedeacon
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2012 05:32 am
@MyOwnUsername,
Malta is NOT a muslim nation--that is the muslims do not run the country. They are not in charge. Any nation run by muslims is an un-happy nation. There is no joy in being a muslim.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2012 05:41 am
@westsidedeacon,
Uh-huh . . . so you claim Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation on the planet, is an unhappy nation? Bigot.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2012 07:40 am
@westsidedeacon,
westsidedeacon wrote:

Malta is NOT a muslim nation--that is the muslims do not run the country. They are not in charge.


apparently you didn't read the post which brought Malta into the discussion.

Read the thread from the beginning - then come back and make a sensible comment.
0 Replies
 
aymanbinmoshi
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 12:32 am
@timberlandko,
From my experience I know that there the Muslims those want to live according to their sown sariah are not called peaceful and those who want to live as the slave of westerns are called to peaceful.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 03:37 am
@millaj,
Quote:
Can u show me the verses from the Quran where it is so violent? The ones u are talking about on this post. I want to see that you make statements with its evidence. Or else, everyone should believe me when I say I ate breakfast with Elvis at my home.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
Despite the web address - this site deals with explaining how Islams three holy books work together, and the violent inclinations in them (before you comment on 'violent inclinations' - at least have a read of it)

I would point out that in many nations where Islam gains enough followers, civil war breaks out soon afterwards. There are a number of nations around the world currently with this type of civil war within their borders.

I would also point out that where muslims gain a sufficient foothold, they often try to impose sharia law.

And also that - where muslims are dominant, non-muslims are treated as second class citizens (every muslim will admit this is the case)

It is also the only religion that can/does impose a death sentence against muslims who convert to another religion.

It is also the only religion that is likely to kill you for making fun of their prophet...or for political convenience of the Satanic Verses.

It is also the only major religion whose founder commanded his followers to convert by the sword (for the combative people out there - whatever his followers did, Jesus never commanded that, and actually preached co-operation, peace and turning the other cheek)

It is also the only religion that makes excuses for men raping women, and in many ways, blames women for men raping them.

You will find that a common Islamic teaching divides the world into 'the abode of Islam' and 'the abode of war', and there will only be peace when the whole world is 'the world of Islam' (very deluded there - they will no doubt come up with some excuse why it isn't so, if it ever happens)

And while I think there are plenty of peaceful Muslims - in a world of 1 Billion & growing Muslims, even 10% with violent religios bents equals 100,000,000 of such. And by the way, around 10% of Muslims are actually considered to be 'extremists'

While I personally think most religions are deserving of respect - this is one religion that I think is very ugly...hiding behind a peaceful facade, and also behind the ignorance of westerners who think it like any other religion, without ever really bothering to look into it.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 03:40 am
Bigot. Look at the bible some time if you want a text book in ruthless violence.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 02:52 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta - that is a complete fallacy in logic. What has one religion to do with whether or not another religion is violent?

The answer is - absolutely nothing.

You're smart enough to realise this - so why did you even make the comparison?

Everything I said is true to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps you'd like to comment on what you found to be wrong?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 02:40 am
@vikorr,
No, it's not true, and that's the point of my response, which is not fallacious. What is fallacious is your hateful bigotry to the effect that Muslim scripture makes Muslims violent. I just provided the example of Christian scripture being just as appallingly violent, which, by your criterion, would make Christians unifformly violent.

The only fallacy here is the hateful rant you have made against Muslims based on their scripture. You can't blame me for the "logic," given that you advanced the proposition.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 03:51 am
Say Vikorr, you wouldn't be from India, would you?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 04:21 pm
@Setanta,
It always amazes me that anyone who speaks out against anything religious is called a hater...how utterly illogical that you must hate something to believe it dangerous.

Oh I don't hate Muslims Set...I recognise people & religion as two separate things.

Nor do I hate Islam (though I do think it ugly & dangerous, which is a different thing) - just as I don't hate great white sharks - but I do recognise a great white shark for what it is - dangerous.

I always try to be respectful to individual muslims (I got rather specific, because of course, I do have an issue with the suicidal maniac kind)... but I don't make any quibbles about finding the religion dangerous either.

As for Christian scripture - I'm sure you've visited many threads where I've personally stated that it contains many violent hypocrisy's.
Quote:
No, it's not true, and that's the point of my response, which is not fallacious.
Your comparison was completely and utterly wrong. Whether or not christianity is violent, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Islam is violent.

You still haven't pointed out anything I said that was wrong.

Perhaps you'd care to.

Quote:
What is fallacious is your hateful bigotry to the effect that Muslim scripture makes Muslims violent.
Ahh- their own prophet commanded violence in order to convert. This isn't debatable Set.

While the website I posted 'may' be biased (I don't have enough information to attest it's accuracy), the simple fact is that it can obviously be easily argued that it is violent...and the results out there in the world attest to this. The number of bombings worldwide is breathtaking. The number of suicide bombers is breathtaking. It is, in my view, unarguable a dangerous religion.

You brainwashed paradigm to believe that a view that something is dangerous must equal hatefulness bemusing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 04:36 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Despite the web address - this site deals with explaining how Islams three holy books work together, and the violent inclinations in them


This was your claim, and if one can say that Islam has violent inclinations because of it's scripture, it is completely reasonable, and not fallacious to point the same thing out about Christianity. It's hardly my fault that you can't see how you let yourself open to that criticism.

Please tell in what countries civil war rages now as a result of a preponderance of Muslims.

Leaving aside that you haven't established that having Shari'a is a bad thing, Indonesia is the lartest Muslim nation on the planet based on population, and from the Wikipedia article:

Quote:
Shari'a generated debate and concern during 2004, and many of the issues raised touched on religious freedom. Aceh remained the only part of the country where the central Government specifically authorized Shari'a. Law 18/2001 granted Aceh special autonomy and included authority for Aceh to establish a system of Shari'a as an adjunct to, not a replacement for, national civil and criminal law. Before it could take effect, the law required the provincial legislature to approve local regulations ("qanun") incorporating Shari'a precepts into the legal code. Law 18/2001 states that the Shari'a courts would be "free from outside influence by any side." Article 25(3) states that the authority of the court will only apply to Muslims. Article 26(2) names the national Supreme Court as the court of appeal for Aceh's Shari'a courts.

Aceh is the only province that has Shari'a courts. Religious leaders responsible for drafting and implementing the Shari'a regulations stated that they had no plans to apply criminal sanctions for violations of Shari'a. Islamic law in Aceh, they said, would not provide for strict enforcement of fiqh or hudud, but rather would codify traditional Acehnese Islamic practice and values such as discipline, honesty, and proper behavior. They claimed enforcement would not depend on the police but rather on public education and societal consensus.


So Shari'a is not universal in the nation in which more than one in eight Muslims live, and in the one area in which Shari'a is recognized, it has no civil enforcement, and does not supplant the civil code.

Much of the rest of your rant is based on Islam's historical record--no major religion is lily-white by an historical standard.

The abuse of women, including rape, is hardly an area in which one can reasonably claim that Islam is uniquely repressive. What do you think the Christian Serbs were doing to the Muslim Bosnia women with their rape camps?

Virtually every complaint you make is ipse dixit, just claims you make without substantiation. A good example is you throwinug out that 10% of Muslim this or that horseshit--got some substantiation for your claim? Christianity is seven hundred years older than Islam. Shall we discuss how Christians behaved seven hundred years ago?

I won't be responding to you again. I consider you a disgusting and hateful bigot.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 05:06 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
This was your claim, and if one can say that Islam has violent inclinations because of it's scripture, it is completely reasonable, and not fallacious to point the same thing out about Christianity. It's hardly my fault that you can't see how you let yourself open to that criticism.


It's reasonable to compare violence if one is comparing religions - which we aren't.

It's aslo 'logical' (ie manipulatively logical) to attempt to divert attention from the violence of one religion by pointing out the violence of another religion.

It's completely illogical to suggest that the violence of one religion makes the violence of another religion okay...neither is okay.

Quote:
Virtually every complaint you make is ipse dixit, just claims you make without substantiation. A good example is you throwinug out that 10% of Muslim this or that horseshit--got some substantiation for your claim?
Like most people Set, the things we say are from things we have either read of experienced. A quick google search brought up the following, and no I haven't bothered to validate them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270441/only-15-percent-libyan-rebels-are-islamic-extremists-john-rosenthal#
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_percentage_of_Muslim_moderates_and_extremists_in_Islam

This one deals with concerns about Islamic Extremism - have a quick look through the whole lot - because it polls Islamic nations too.


Quote:
Please tell in what countries civil war rages now as a result of a preponderance of Muslims.
Off the top of my head, western China and southern Thailand. I do recall reading of more years back, but I don't recall the countries names.

Quote:
The abuse of women, including rape, is hardly an area in which one can reasonably claim that Islam is uniquely repressive. What do you think the Christian Serbs were doing to the Muslim Bosnia women with their rape camps?
And they should be imprisoned...but again, one religions violence is irrelevant to whether or not another religion is violent.

Also, there are Islamic countries that have it written into law that you can't be 'raped' without the witness of 4 muslim men...as if that is EVER going to happen. An Australian nurse in the UAE was raped a few years back, and when she made complaint she was charged with Adultery because she didn't have those witnesses to her rape...and she was automatically put in jail for it.

There was also a series of pack rapes of white Australian females my Islamic men (15 of them). When they were eventually charged, the most senior Islamic Imam in Australia stated 'if a cat sees naked meat, of course it is going to eat it', and decried the judicial system as not showing mercy.
Quote:
Christianity is seven hundred years older than Islam. Shall we discuss how Christians behaved seven hundred years ago?
Again - a comparison to another religion says absolutely nothing about whether or not the subject religion is dangerous or violent.

For your sake - christianity several hundred years ago was dangerous...and that has nothing at all to do with whether or not Islam itself is dangerous - get it?

Quote:
I won't be responding to you again. I consider you a disgusting and hateful bigot.
This from a man who frequently abuses people? Well Set, in this regard I guess your abuse and view of me isn't overly meaningful to me. It says more about who you are than anything else.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 06:28 pm
@Setanta,
vikorr wrote:
I would also point out that where muslims gain a sufficient foothold, they often try to impose sharia law

Setanta wrote:
So Shari'a is not universal in the nation in which more than one in eight Muslims live, and in the one area in which Shari'a is recognized, it has no civil enforcement, and does not supplant the civil code.
(as a side note, there have been a lot of christian church bombings by muslims in Indonesia)

In terms of this, you are ignoring a bigger picture. This is also from a very quick search, and is in no way exhaustive.


In England :

And in France :
Quote:
Islamists want to influence the laws of the state. When using the term Islamist, Muslims refer almost exclusively to those whose program is to establish an Islamic state. There are many more movements to establish such states than are recognized as Islamist by the West, thus the use is not very uniform.

This is not to say that Islamist groups advocate violent takeover in every political environment, they might simply advocate Sharia Law. Because influence in French politics is possible without resorting to violence, the use of violence in that context is considered counterproductive toward achieving their goal of guiding the political system according to the principles of Islam.

The political aim of Islamists is ultimately the formal establishment of Sharia law, with or without modern adaptations. Fundamentalism and traditionalism, of themselves, do not have this specific political connotation at all. Islamists are deemed such according to their adherence to the political goal of an Islamic state, rather than by features of their religious observance.

vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 06:42 pm
@vikorr,
And an important list :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 07:13 pm
@vikorr,
And on the founding of Islam, and the prophet converting by the sword (and lets face it, they all rever Muhammed and his commands)

Again not thoroughly checked - just enough to say that It agrees with many of the other things I've said/read.
http://www.hraicjk.org/forced_conversion_and_prophet_muhammad.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html

And on Jihad :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

People should also do searches on 'Militant Islam'.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2019 at 02:46:43