Muslims, Islam and violence.

[Slick]

If there were as many anti Christian sites on the onternet I'm sure I would have the time to do so, however the Old testament has loads of that kind of stuff in it and Christians believe in that bit aswell

Are we supposed to take your word for it then that the old testament has "loads of that kind of stuff in it" then because you don't "have the time" to research into the claims you are making? I regularly read the old testament, and some of it can be considered to be harsh. For example in passages where God is punishing people for their sins, which isn't easy reading but never does it once encourage Christians to kill non-believers or anything even remotely similar. Those quotations are taken directly from the Qu'ran and are so clear in their message that they can only be interpreted in one way.

[Taz]

Here's an interesting site. The link below is actually halfway into the article but should prove interesting:

http://www.faithandvalues.com/channe...am_violent.asp

Take a quick read of the 5 short passages and then click the appropriate radio button reflecting your view. The next screen may surprise you! it just goes to show that people will read what they want to believe.

There's also a misconception about the role of women in Islam. So here's a quick quiz about your perceptions:

http://www.faithandvalues.com/channels/islam_women.asp

Again, the answers are interesting!

[badass]

Are we supposed to take your word for it then that the old testament has "loads of that kind of stuff in it" then because you don't "have the time" to research into the claims you are making? I regularly read the old testament, and some of it can be considered to be harsh. For example in passages where God is punishing people for their sins, which isn't easy reading but never does it once encourage Christians to kill non-believers or anything even remotely similar. Those quotations are taken directly from the Qu'ran and are so clear in their message that they can only be interpreted in one way.

It appears that Taz has done a far better answer than I could have.
He has stepped up to your "challenge" aswell.
However I think I'm wasting my time trying to convince you that Islam is not inherently violent, nor are the vast majority of its followers since I doubt if I could ever convince you of this case, no matter how much evidence I presented and how little you could find to counteract it. You will always prejudge muslims.

[Slick]

Here's an interesting site. The link below is actually halfway into the article but should prove interesting:

http://www.faithandvalues.com/channe...am_violent.asp

The key phrase in all of those passages is "put to death" this was not always an instruction and was often meant as a spiritual death i.e. goto hell. Those quotes were nowhere near as direct and applicable to modern day followers as those I mentioned about Islam. The laws mentioned in the old testament were part of the old convent. It became clear after the arrival of Jesus these laws were obsolete, St Peter was very forceful on this matter. It was Jesus who when a stoning was about to take place stopped and required the first stone to be thrown by those who had not sinned. Getting into the old testament is complex and requires a lot more understanding to interpret, this is why I asked for particularly a new testament quote.

However I think I'm wasting my time trying to convince you that Islam is not inherently violent, nor are the vast majority of its followers since I doubt if I could ever convince you of this case

I don't have anything against Muslims as people, that is not to say I don't disagree with their religion, its basis and beliefs are often extremely backwards and violent, you just have to look on the news and the protests against the cartoons in London where everyone was screaming for blood and to behead the publishers of the cartoons.

how much evidence I presented and how little you could find to counteract it. You will always prejudge muslims.

So far it seems like it was only I who presented any evidence, you couldn't because you "didn't have the time" to do any research. I do not prejude muslims, I have friends who are muslims and budhists and spent last summer in an Islamic country, for part of it living with a family of muslims. It in no way affects the way I treat muslims as people, I just believe their beliefs are false and can be dangerous.

[badass]

It became clear after the arrival of Jesus these laws were obsolete, St Peter was very forceful on this matter.

But Matthew was not.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil Matthew 5:17

Want me to post some of the violent ones? I've found loads.
All of the Abrahamic religions have violence preached in them. Especially for non believers. In fact I bet the vast majority of religious texts do. Except the buddhist ones. That seems like a more peaceful religion.

[Slick]

But Matthew was not

Yes he was, the word "fulfill" there means to end, not to offer an alternative replacement. That is why his final words were "it is done". It is talking about the basis of the Jewish belief, the prophecies of the son of God coming down to earth, he did not want to replace Judaism because if you were a true Jew and believed in the scriptures you would believe in him being the son of God, sadly this was not the case. When he came to earth the prophecies and the religion became fulfilled and we should follow Christ's example of how to live your life (hopefully without the persecution etc).

Want me to post some of the violent ones? I've found loads.
All of the Abrahamic religions have violence preached in them. Especially for non believers. In fact I bet the vast majority of religious texts do. Except the buddhist ones. That seems like a more peaceful religion.

Feel free to post some more, I would be interested, particularly new testament ones. Buddhism seems to be peaceful but if you look at the beliefs they follow they can be extremely dark, I know this because I live with a Thai buddhist monk who grew up in their atmosphere. Becomming "enlightened", which is the overall goal of any budhist, put simply means to gain a great realisation that you can do nothing about the pain in your life and in this world and you are continually on a rollercoaster of good and bad things happening. Because you realise this you no longer want the cycle to continue and want to end your eternal life, this happens when you die if you have achieved enlightenment (and you will not be reincarnated again) and is worth it because no life is better then ones with bad things in it. To me that doesn't sound like much of a religion, more like depression and feeling suicidal. Personally I don't agree with that, I believe that without sadness you couldn't have hapiness and that's what a lot of life is about, enjoying the happy moments and getting through the sad, it is not something I would want to end my eternal life over. But you are right in the sense that Budhists generally appear to be very peaceful people and generally not cause violence towards other people.

[RVF500]

Why argue over texts that were written (in some cases) thousands of years ago with the standards and mores of the times very different from our own? To the average Joe living at the time these books were written stoning someone to death was proabably deemed the done thing for what were considered crimes then. Nowadays we don't consider cursing mum and dad as a crime. If we did no one would get out of infants school without a criminal record.

This is where the issue lies. It's how people interpret the religious texts in the modern world. There are those that take them verbatim, those that try and 'modernise and of course though who twist ambiguous pasages to make them mean whatever they want them to as long as it incites someone else to do their dirty work for them.

Perhaps this is more apparent in Islam because there are many more who follow the religion closely than in Christianity where we tend to be more relaxed towards the religion to the point of it being mere background to most. Or discarded completely. It's hard to convince a mass of people to carry out acts of violence in the name of a religion that they are largely ambivilent towards. Muslims tend to be much less ambivilent towards their religion. Maybe this is why we see the scenes we see?

[badass]

Yes he was, the word "fulfill" there means to end, not to offer an alternative replacement. That is why his final words were "it is done". It is talking about the basis of the Jewish belief, the prophecies of the son of God coming down to earth, he did not want to replace Judaism because if you were a true Jew and believed in the scriptures you would believe in him being the son of God, sadly this was not the case. When he came to earth the prophecies and the religion became fulfilled and we should follow Christ's example of how to live your life (hopefully without the persecution etc).

OK

Feel free to post some more, I would be interested, particularly new testament ones.

And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire

As you probably know the context they are talking about people, not trees.

5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

He suggests that to simply look at a woman lustfully you have commited Adultery. Thats not exactily fair.

8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Seems he doesn't think much of Jews either.

6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Suggests there that those who do not recieve his followers are in for a bit of a rough time!
There's a few

[fuddam]

As you probably know the context they are talking about people, not trees.

He suggests that to simply look at a woman lustfully you have commited Adultery. Thats not exactily fair.

Seems he doesn't think much of Jews either.

Suggests there that those who do not recieve his followers are in for a bit of a rough time!
There's a few

lol. so ironic. long posts from many about how some religious people misquote their religious texts in order to justify their agenda. And that post is doing is exactly the same. LOL.

People always have an agenda. The more vociferous deny that of course, because they are Wielders of the Truth.

Well, as a Christian, I also have an agenda: to get you non-Christians, of all persuasions, to have more joy in your lives than you ever thought possible. hehehehehehe. Yep, that be it, pretty much. To have good relationships with your families and communities, to lead fulfilled lives, to have people love and value your friendship, and for you to be content in yourself.

No matter how much people want to (mis)quote the bible to justify their own agendas is up to them. I'll just keep on plugging away at mine, which I assume is shared by other Christians on this forum. <Prayer-mode ON.>

[badass]

lol. so ironic. long posts from many about how some religious people misquote their religious texts in order to justify their agenda. And that post is doing is exactly the same. LOL.

Please explain how those are misquoted then and explian to me how they are in fact not what I am suggesting.
Of course it seems that by general consensus on here when people do it fron the Qu'ran their interpretation is the only one, and therefore Muslims are all violent but when done to the Bible, its twisting things
Cant you see the point I'm making.

[RVF500]

I agree with Fudum to a certain extent here. Much of what is written there is subject to interpretation. How do we know he was not speaking figuratively? The adultery in the heart bit looks to me more like a philisophical approach than to say that you have actually comitted adultery for example. But that's MY interpretation. Which is obviously different from others. Who's to say I'm right or wrong? As the guy who wrote it is long gone and can't clear the matter up for us

[Slick]

As you probably know the context they are talking about people, not trees.

He suggests that to simply look at a woman lustfully you have commited Adultery. Thats not exactily fair.

Seems he doesn't think much of Jews either.

Suggests there that those who do not recieve his followers are in for a bit of a rough time!
There's a few

I really don't understand your point here, the quotations you are using are the entire point of Christianity - That Christ is the only saviour and only through him will you be redeemed of your sins. Not everyone may agree with this but how does it encourage Christians to be violent? You are taking quotes about hell, of course hell is bad, that's the whole idea! I have already made very clear:

For example in passages where God is punishing people for their sins, which isn't easy reading but never does it once encourage Christians to kill non-believers or anything even remotely similar.

Not one of those quotations you gave even hint at humans doing the will of God and to kill and torture people themselves unlike those I provided in the Qu'ran. When you look at advice for Christians there are passages like "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".

[iranu]

Much of what is written there is subject to interpretation. How do we know he was not speaking figuratively? The adultery in the heart bit looks to me more like a philisophical approach than to say that you have actually comitted adultery for example. But that's MY interpretation. Which is obviously different from others. Who's to say I'm right or wrong? As the guy who wrote it is long gone and can't clear the matter up for us

This is an extremely valid point and probably the most important one.

If you have an (largely) uneducated, insular, poor (by western standards), religious culture then the populous does not have the ability to think for themselves or make reasoned judgement on how to interpret those texts. They therefore have only one option, to have those texts interpreted for them. It does not take a nobel prize in physics to see that this is how extremist preachers manage to spread the hate. Once there is critical mass it becomes self sustaining because the mind has been set. This radicalism is then spread or exported. It suits some governments to keep this state of affairs.

[RedPutty]

Here's some quotes from the Qu'ran:

"Those who follow Muhammad are merciless for the unbelievers but kind to each other." (48:29)

"Enmity and hatred will reign between us until ye believe in Allah alone." (60:4)

"Make war on them until idolatory does not exist any longer and Allah's religion reigns universally." (8:39) (2:193)

"Fight the unbelievers in your surroundings, and let them find harshness in you." (9:123)

"Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, capture and besiege them and prepare for them every kind of ambush." (9:5)

I challenge you to find me any quotes from the Bible, particularly ones from the new testament which encourages Christians to do the same. I think you'll find "thou shalt not murder", "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "Judge not, that ye be not judged" etc.

Where did you get the quotes from slick, you obviously did no research about them.

They are taken out of context and well designed to incite hatred against islam.

say for example this one

"Make war on them until idolatory does not exist any longer and Allah's religion reigns universally." (8:39) (2:193)

here is their context

(2.193): And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion
should be only for God, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility
except against the oppressors.

(8:39): And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion
should be only for God; but if they desist, then surely God sees what they
do.

The others are similarly made to have different meanings because of the way they have been removed from context.

You have to remember the pseudo historical nature of holy books, quotes from them are often referring to specific events in the stories.

Idolatry wasnt looked on very kindly in the Bible either:

When Moses reached the bottom of the mountain, he heard singing and saw revelry around the calf, and he dropped the two tablets and they shattered. He ground up the calf and made 'bitter waters' out of it, which he forced the people to drink, and then he turned on Aaron. And God, we are told, was so angry that he could have just about killed Aaron.

"Who is on God's side?" (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 26)

Moses asked, and the Levites stood beside him. He then ordered them to

"kill your brother, friend, and neighbor." (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 27)

He then announced that this was the day of the institution of the Levitical priesthood because by killing their brothers, friends, and neighbors,

"you have brought a blessing this day upon yourselves." (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 29)

What a charming story

[RVF500]

A Muslim cleric has offered a &#163;13,000 reward to anyone who kills the man who drew cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, according to the Associated Press.

Imagine if the Arch Bishop of Canterbury put a contract out on someone? Well, this will just add to the perception being hardened in the West. Islam is seen more and more to be violent and oppressive. Forget 1000 year old texts. This is today and a so-called spiritual leader has put a contract out on someone.

[badass]

Imagine if the Arch Bishop of Canterbury put a contract out on someone? Well, this will just add to the perception being hardened in the West. Islam is seen more and more to be violent and oppressive. Forget 1000 year old texts. This is today and a so-called spiritual leader has put a contract out on someone.

FFS you equal "A Muslim Cleric" to the Archbishop of canturbury.
There's opne archbishop of canturbury. There's a lot more muslim clerics.
If you compared that to a priest that would be fairer. Can you say for sure that no priests have ever put contracts out on someone?