Why I think being a Muslim is rational.

[Deleted member 848]

Thanks Koran for creating these people:

https://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/29/11457865-red-cross-doctor-found-beheaded-in-pakistan?lite

Not sure if you're trolling, but you are seriously a clown. What a foolish thing to post.

I would rather have peace than Algebra.

The Islam world is a violent one.

Oh yeah? Give me some examples of this "violent, Islamic World" prior to the Second World War. If you have this view, how in Gods name can you explain three faiths co-existing in all islamic countries for millennia?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Hitler has a funny looking Mustache. Charlie Chaplin also had the same mustache... That doesn't mean Hitler is as funny as Charlie Chaplin especially if you are a Jew.

Please: Shut up.

 

[Stoked]

Not sure if you're trolling, but you are seriously a clown. What a foolish thing to post.

Oh yeah? Give me some examples of this "violent, Islamic World" prior to the Second World War. If you have this view, how in Gods name can you explain three faiths co-existing in all islamic countries for millennia?

I do not think Islam itself is a violent religion (well anymore violent than any other world religion). The problem is that the people in power have twisted and misrepresented what Islam is. So the view (what poeple see) is violence carried out "in the name" of Islam.

 

[Siro]

I do not think Islam itself is a violent religion (well anymore violent than any other world religion). The problem is that the people in power have twisted and misrepresented what Islam is. So the view (what poeple see) is violence carried out "in the name" of Islam.

I never got that argument. How do you judge whether a religion is violent if not by the number of people who commit violence in its name? Do the words have to jump out of the book and punch you in the face?

 

[Stoked]

I never got that argument. How do you judge whether a religion is violent if not by the number of people who commit violence in its name? Do the words have to jump out of the book and punch you in the face?

The Bible is just as violent, there is plenty of violence in the Book of Mormon as well. Would you call Mormons violent?

 

[Siro]

The Bible is just as violent, there is plenty of violence in the Book of Mormon as well. Would you call Mormons violent?

No. I don't recall many Mormons committing acts of violence in the name of Mormonism. That's exactly my point...

 

[Stoked]

No. I don't recall many Mormons committing acts of violence in the name of Mormonism. That's exactly my point...

And you are proving mine. The leaders are pushing this violent view of Islam on the people. So like any people (generally speaking) they follow. (ex. look at all the sheeple in politics here in the US. They are told what to think). The faith itself is not violent. Just the idiots in power trying to make it so.


Edit: if the Mormon Prophets over the last 50 years preached violence then the general core of the church would be violent. Mormonism itself would not be violent though.

 

[Siro]

And you are proving mine. The leaders are pushing this violent view of Islam on the people. So like any people (generally speaking) they follow. (ex. look at all the sheeple in politics here in the US. They are told what to think). The faith itself is not violent. Just the idiots in power trying to make it so.

You can say that about anything. Nazism wasn't violent. It was just the leaders pushing a violent view on their people! That argument can literally, without any adjustment, defend every ideology every conceived. The plain fact is: the Quran is full of violence. Muslims respond to the slightest provocation (a drawing of their prophet) with extreme threats and acts of violence. That makes Islam violent. I cannot think of a single meaningful definition that would make it non-violent.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You can say that about anything. Nazism wasn't violent. It was just the leaders pushing a violent view on their people! That argument can literally, without any adjustment, defend every ideology every conceived. The plain fact is: the Quran is full of violence. Muslims respond to the slightest provocation (a drawing of their prophet) with extreme threats and acts of violence. That makes Islam violent. I cannot think of a single meaningful definition that would make it non-violent.

Ok.


So on one hand, you basically agree with Stoked's sentiment, but infer that it is generic, and can be basically applied to nearly everything.


But then, you say "OHH, but the Quran is full of violence!!!! Look at all of the things blown up by western media over the past few years!!! This must be a direct representation of everybody of that faith!". What I don't understand, is that if you say that Stoked's point is generic, but then you use this exact same point to prove that a religion is violent, to me it comes across within the realms of irony, and redundancy. Unless your opinion is "everything that is has direct/indirect ties violence should automatically be considered violent as well", I am not exactly following you.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Dude, do you ever post on the Jazz forum, or did you sign up just to argue about being Muslim to a bunch of Mormons?

 

[Siro]

Ok.


So on one hand, you basically agree with Stoked's sentiment, but infer that it is generic, and can be basically applied to nearly everything.


But then, you say "OHH, but the Quran is full of violence!!!! Look at all of the things blown up by western media over the past few years!!! This must be a direct representation of everybody of that faith!". What I don't understand, is that if you say that Stoked's point is generic, but then you use this exact same point to prove that a religion is violent, to me it comes across within the realms of irony, and redundancy. Unless your opinion is "everything that is has direct/indirect ties violence should automatically be considered violent as well", I am not exactly following you.

So an ideology can only be considered violent if every single follower is violent? We're setting the bar a bit low here, aren't we? Islam creates a violent and destabilizing atmosphere wherever it takes hold. Muslims don't play nice with others. There is no freedom of religion in Islam, and no acknowledgment of cultural differences. Just black and white absolutes. Whether it is in India, or the Philippines, Russia and Eastern Europe, or anywhere else, Islam becomes aggressively divisive and inevitably leads to conflict. The video TBS had in his signature is correct, Islam will take over Europe. I'm hoping by that time it will be a neutered and semi-secular Islam, like today's Christianity. Otherwise, Islam is simply the worst threat to social progress facing the world today.

 

[Deleted member 848]

So an ideology can only be considered violent if every single follower is violent? We're setting the bar a bit low here, aren't we?

Okay. Where should we set the bar then?

Islam creates a violent and destabilizing atmosphere wherever it takes hold. Muslims don't play nice with others. There is no freedom of religion in Islam, and no acknowledgment of cultural differences. Just black and white absolutes. Whether it is in India, or the Philippines, Russia and Eastern Europe, or anywhere else, Islam becomes aggressively divisive and inevitably leads to conflict. The video TBS had in his signature is correct, Islam will take over Europe. I'm hoping by that time it will be a neutered and semi-secular Islam, like today's Christianity. Otherwise, Islam is simply the worst threat to social progress facing the world today.

Oh please, Siromar. I seriously thought you were better than this.

No freedom of religion? Do you realize that Islamic nations allowed freedom of religious-expression centuries before nearly every other European nation? I know you do. How have the Khaldians of Iraq existed for millennia? Same with catholics in Lebanon? Turkey? I can say with no doubt in my mind that Saudi Arabia is historically the only muslim dominant nation that was restrictive, in terms of allowing freedom of expressing religion. The backbone of the Golden Age of Islam is often credited specifically to their tolerance of other cultures, and their ambition to create dialogue with people of other faiths. I know you know this.


Here's my opinion of why I think your view of Islam is incorrect. When you look at the faith, you only consider the last 40 years of Islam and popular culture. Unfortunately, most popular representations of Islam at these times are characterized to wealthier Islamic nations, which are unanimously corrupt. Why do you not look at what the faith has done in the other 1300< years of its existence? Things like progress the Scientific, philosophical, and political World in times where no other nation was doing anything?


Regardless. You want a fairly-recent example of an Islamic nation acknowledging cultural differences, and not "being divisive, or leading to inter-religious conflict? Here you go: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?9006-Muslim-Albanians-who-Rescued-Jews-during-the-Holocaust

The remarkable assistance afforded to the Jews was grounded in Besa, a code of honor, which still today serves as the highest ethical code in the country. Besa, means literally “to keep the promise.” One who acts according to Besa is someone who keeps his word, someone to whom one can trust one’s life and the lives of one’s family. Apparently this code sprouted from the Muslim faith as interpreted by the Albanians.

Huh. Would you look at that? An interpretation of Islam used for peaceful co-existence among different faiths. THIS CANNOT BE!!

Read that thread that I posted a while back, and then come back and respond to this argument. I've always liked you as a poster, but this post of yours has got to be one of the most questionable ones that I've seen from you.