Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

@coldjoint,

What is your excuse for lying cj? Islam is so bad that you are forced to exaggerate in order to make it seem as bad as you think it is?

1 Reply

@timberlandko,

a little over ten years ago timber said

timberlandko wrote:

You're proceeding from a logical falacy ... the one has nothing to do with the other. How many Catholic nations would pass your test? Not too many in Latin America, not Spain or Ireland, nor Greece, Cyprus, or Malta. How many nations populated predominantly by those of Sub-Sahara African descent would pass your test? Not too many anywhere. How many current or former Communist nations could pass your test? Not very many there, either, are there? How many Asian nations would pass your test, or Third World nations, or emergent democracies?

What you've got there is a prejudice, not a premis.

it seems like nothing meaningful has been added to the thread after the positions were staked out in the first two or three pages

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Thanks for sharing that by timberlanko; one of the good guys who left us too soon, but his words still rings true!

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Islam is so bad

far enough Shill. And what am I exaggerating. Be specific and I will explain.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Timberlandko wrote that in relation to the OP, which was this:

Quote:

Somebody remarked to me over the weekend that you can look at the entire globe, and anywhere you find the majority as muslim, you will find that country has had a long standing internal war between groups. Essentially, anywhere there's muslims, brutal killings, internal war and opression is woven into the fabric of daily life. Is this true or are there peaceful muslim nations?

Although that was the starting question...and Timbers reply has some merit:
- the original premise is not same premise as spoken about for much of the latter part of the thread.
- there is nothing wrong with examining causes to any form, or any pattern of violence. To suggest that the curiosity (to ask a question, particularly one that invites the examination of causes) is a prejudice, is flawed. As the question invites examination of the causes, it is only after the facts have been revealed that prejudice could truly show...in how each person treated the revealed information.

In relation to that latter premise - there are those that believe they know the answer, and as such they feel no true need to:
- take a close look into the facts of an alleged problem (ie factual evidence on how big, wide, frequent, severe, etc the alleged problem is). Nor to
-take a look into the contributing factors.
In the lack of effort to avail themselves of such facts, these people unknowingly exhibit ignorance and prejudice while claiming 'the right(eous) perspective'.

If they bothered to truly look into it and come up with a perspective that disagrees with another...that would be fine - the world is made for different opinions.

Evidence that a person could be bothered looking into the depth of an alleged problem would, coupled with a willingness to examine the (alleged) problem would show in:
A. knowledge & acknowledgement of the scale of the evidence (of the alleged problem)
B. a willingness to discuss the scale, and possible causes
C. a knowledge of the contributing factors
CA. a knowledge of factual evidence of contributing factors
D. a willingness to discuss the merits of the contributing factors

Most people (not everyone) disagreeing that Islam contributes to the violence done in it's name fail A (which is the major basis to investigate C). There's little evidence that they've made effort at B. They barely engage in any discussion of C, nor CA. And so show little towards D...but they claim the perspective must be wrong...

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

Most people (not everyone) disagreeing that Islam contributes to the violence done in it's name fail A

Religion contributes to violence in many cases but attributing it to religion alone ignores many other factors. It would be rather silly to attribute all acts by those claiming to be Muslims to be the result of their religion just as it would be silly to attribute all acts of those claiming to be Christian to be the result of their religion.

When you start by assuming A means Islam causes violence you have done nothing more than created a logical fallacy.

It would be as easy to argue that poverty causes violence rather than Islam since poverty can be found in those countries where it is assumed the religion is causing the violence.

2 Replies

@parados,

Also, any student of history knows that most countries with any religion have perpetrated violence against their own people and others. In Iraq, the Sunnis and Shia have been at war for over 1000 years. Look at the history of the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

If one bothers to really study Napoleon (Catholic), Tamerlane (Muslim), and Genghis Khan (religiously tolerant), they'd learn about how wide-spread their violence were including their own religious belief.

People who suffer from myopia can only see Muslims as the perpetrators. That ignores human history.

1 Reply

@parados,

Hello Parados.

Quote:

Religion contributes to violence in many cases but attributing it to religion alone ignores many other factors. It would be rather silly to attribute all acts by those claiming to be Muslims to be the result of their religion just as it would be silly to attribute all acts of those claiming to be Christian to be the result of their religion.

They say people read only what they want to read. Please read more carefully. The violence I am talking about, and repeatedly mention (somewhere between to 50-100 times by now), is violence done in the name of Islam.

Quote:

When you start by assuming A means Islam causes violence you have done nothing more than created a logical fallacy.

Again...not general violence, but violence done in the name of Islam.

Other failures in reading comprehension include:

I say 'the religion contributes to the violence done in it's name'...you say 'you can't say it's the only contributing factor'...which of course I didn't say....and then go one to fail A - D yet again, simply proving the point I was making.

By the way, just mentioning (A)...does not display any knowledge of it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Some people would fall into your category CI...but to suggest that all who claim Islam inspires violence in it's name ignore history (of the type of you mentioned) - is a simple fallacy of wishful thinking.

Instead, such people can recognise that each ideology and each religion and each country and each culture will have different degrees of effect on violence, and violence done in it's (the ideolgy of either religion, nationalism, economic or other) name. From that point - investigating the degree a religion contributes to violence done in it's name with eyes wide open is fine.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

I didn't claim Islam inspires violence; just the opposite.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Ah, when I said

Quote:

.but to suggest that all who claim Islam inspires violence in it's name ignore history

, and given the context (where you suggested such), should it not have been obvious that it should read as 'but (for you) to suggest that all who claim ....' ?

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Define violence "done in the name of Islam." Until you do that, you have failed your A-D. You are simply defining something to meet a prejudice then looking for facts to support the predefined prejudice.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

predefined prejudice.

predefined violence, look at the Koran. And listen to the verses they quote when they kill. There is no prejudice. These are facts. You don't seem to know the difference.

0 Replies

@parados,

Uh, parados - violence done in the name of Islam is very easy to define:

- when the person who commits the violence claims to do it for Islam
- when a person does it to further the cause of Islam
- when the violence is religiously motivated by Islam to commit the violence

Quite frankly, it is so obvious that it shouldn't need discussion...so your claim about 'until you do that you have failed your A-D' is just nonsense.

So...have you yet looked into (A)?

I doubt it (for you show no evidence of it)...and yet you jump to what you consider to be informed judgements.

Quote:

You are simply defining something to meet a prejudice then looking for facts to support the predefined prejudice.

Not at all. I came to this conclusion after wondering why Arabs hate Americans so much (after 9-11), believing that it couldn't possibly be just because of religion....it's not just because of religion (there's very, very good secular reasons for them hating americans), but in order to answer my query I had to look into the religion - writing by those both for, and against, historical (into the founding), and religious. In doing such research, you inevitably cross the subject of terrorism, and after doing much research, and looking at patterns, the religion, and the founding... I came to the conclusion was that it is a dangerous religion.

The odd thing about almost all naysayers here is that they are not willing to do the same research. Should they do so, then their words will carry weight (even if they disagree)...until then, they just speak in ignorance....with many adding 'righteousness' to the ignorance.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

One thing few people have understood - although I believe my perspective to be correct, I'm also quite happy to be proven wrong, so long as:

A. it is evidence based (ie you show a knowledge of facts & references, and discuss such...something that is so far, sorely lacking from naysayers); and
B. your conclusions have solid groundings in solid principle coupled with knowledge of facts.

So far, because (A) is barely being touched by naysayers, (B) cannot be achieved by them.

It also helps greatly if:
- you do not display aversion to a discussion (which if continually done, indicates either ignorance, or ingrained prejudices, or fears of the subject, or any combination of such)...which destroys credibility
- you display a willingness to discuss all evidence, and all angles (something that is very sorely lacking in this thread - this is necessary to reach sound conclusions), which increases credibility.

Those latter two are of course, two different sides of the same coin.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

- when the person who commits the violence claims to do it for Islam
- when a person does it to further the cause of Islam
- when the violence is religiously motivated by Islam to commit the violence

Except it isn't easy to define.
1. The person has to express that is the reason.
2. The person has to express that is the reason. It is easy for others not that person to show it doesn't further the cause of Islam.
3. The person has to express that is the reason.

In all cases you are relying on self identification of the reason. That is subjective and relies on first hand knowledge of the person acting and their expressed reason. We see people all the time claim one reason when there really is another one they don't want to express.

2 Replies

@parados,

Most often, it is peer group pressures, poverty, and the feeling of helplessness that provides the motivation for people to join these groups.

That's been proven during the cultural revolution in China when the peasants won the power, and they mistreated all the people who were educated, businessmen and women, and the intelligentsia.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

and they mistreated all the people who were educated,

Bin Laden was highly educated. The leader of ISIS has a PHD. The educated are running these terror organizations. You are the uneducated.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Except it isn't easy to define.
1. The person has to express that is the reason.
2. The person has to express that is the reason. It is easy for others not that person to show it doesn't further the cause of Islam.
3. The person has to express that is the reason.

Sorry Parados...not one of those changes the easy definition...what you are claiming is that the evidence is difficult.

Quote:

We see people all the time claim one reason when there really is another one they don't want to express.

ROFL.:
- even when it's a common claim across so much of the violence?
- Even when attacks on churches are one of the most common forms in so many countries?
- Even when the parents of suicide bombers, who happen to be muslim and are calling their sons/daughters martyrs are also in on it?
- Even when they post 'promotional videos' about their reasons for committing terrorism,
- even when they have complete organisations dedicated to such causes...
- even when investigations reveal the contribution of radical islam in their lives
- even when islamic leaders call for such violence

You're claiming a giant conspiracy by extremely violent people all over the world to commit their violence in the name of Islam?

Extremely Violent people are usually entirely self centred..but these people managed to ALL form a giant, ongoing conspiracy?

This is...delusional.

And none of that takes into account:
- that such acts are consistent with their prophets behaviour, and with so many versus in the Quran / Haddith
- other obvious clues such as the 'holy warriors' who fought in afghanistan during the soviet war
- the other literal calls for holy war / jihad that have been going on for quite some time
- that they set up funding systems to finance these holy wars

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

You're claiming a giant conspiracy by extremely violent people all over the world to commit their violence in the name of Islam?

He also claims Obama is a good president. He is a progressive shill. And just like Islam progressives want control. And have no qualms how they get it.

0 Replies

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know