If people are going to say Islam is violent....

...based on some of the people who follow it (fundamentalists), wouldn't it only be fair to do the same with other religions, such as Christianity, and therefore say that Christianity is violent as well? When people criticize Islam for being violent and point to 9/11, the terror attacks in the Middle East, and oppressive treatment from the government in Saudi as their basis, isn't it only fair to look at events of violence involving Christians as well?

For instance, the Crusades where thousands upon thousands were killed, the Inquisition, the Salem witch hunts where women were boiled alive/drowned/hanged, the genocide and near-extinction of the Native Americans, the slavery of Africans in the U.S., the Holocaust...since these were spurred by Christians wouldn't people who say Islam is violent have to say the same about Christianity for the sake of credibility? It just wouldn't make sense if Islam is called out as the singlemost violent religion.

Anyway, in case any of you have gotten the wrong idea, one obviously can't label a religion as violent based on some of its followers being extremists or terrorists, since it doesn't reflect the actual teachings of the book that the religion originates from. Surely, there are many Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc. who may be extremists or terrorists, but how can you judge their religion based on their actions? Why not, instead, look at the majority of the followers who don't commit acts of violence and judge the religion on the basis of that? It makes more sense, anyway.

Tigerman950

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]

Atheism is violent

Asim90

Stalin was an Atheist as were his many followers.. thus Atheists are all terrorists. This is using the logic of the same people who say all Muslims are terrorists.

Atheism isn't inherently violent, all atheism is is a non-belief in deities.

Atheism isn't an ideology or a religion, it's not a world view of any kind, atheists do not have a set of rules that they must adhere to.

There have been atheists who have done great evil, but not in the name of atheism.

stop associating islam with saudi arabia because they are not the model of what an islamic country should be like. just take a look at saudi's surroundaing countries (UAE,Kuwait Qatar,Bahrain). those countries are open minded and free. i can go out without hijab in those countries and no one will say anything. they evne have bars and night clubs. in Dubai and Qatar they sell pork.

helwa1988

I'm sorry, but do you notice the contradiction in your statement? Since when is allowing bars/nightclubs, alcohol and pork consumption a "model" of what an Islamic country should be? It's anything BUT Islamic. It's just pure democracy. Have you even been to the country?

It's hilarious how some Muslims defend Islam by defiling the very country that stands, in essence, as the pillar. It's like bandaging a gunshoot wound in the arm then shooting yourself in the foot right after. Makes no sense whatsoever. And yes, in essence, it IS a model of a true Islamic nation. If you wanna argue then argue over the culture, not the country's constitution which is solely based on the Quran when it comes to the points you mentioned above. The Quran does not preach violence.

Your hateful spat is so obvious, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents on the topic as if your argument is legitimate. Have fun hating.

[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]

Violence is only encouraged when one is left with no other choice. When someone's attacking you, you're going to defend yourself correct? If they back down then you're supposed to leave it at that and forgive...you can only kill when you have to.

The passage you posted is relative only when someone's going to kill you anyway...you can either defend yourself by subduing the enemy (not necessarily by death) or, only if there is no other plausible option, you can kill them in defense. You know there are plenty of cases with that, with many people who are in combat (warfare, etc.). You're not just gonna let someone kill you, you're gonna stop them from doing that. But killing should never be the first response.

MirkoS77

I hear you, and I agree. However, it seems so many want Islam to be seen as this religion with some sort of "Ghandi-ish" pacifistic mentality where it doesn't advocate violence whatsoever, and it bothers me. This whole logic of, "it's self-defense, therefor it's peaceful." is a bunch of hogwash. Islam IS violent under the right conditions, therefor nobody can claim it to be 100% peaceful.

Well that depends on what you interpret as peace. Is rolling over and letting somebody kill you unjustly resulting in peace? I think not. You certainly wouldn't have peace and that individual would still be roaming the Earth at large.

[QUOTE="helwa1988"]

stop associating islam with saudi arabia because they are not the model of what an islamic country should be like. just take a look at saudi's surroundaing countries (UAE,Kuwait Qatar,Bahrain). those countries are open minded and free. i can go out without hijab in those countries and no one will say anything. they evne have bars and night clubs. in Dubai and Qatar they sell pork.

Aero5555

I'm sorry, but do you notice the contradiction in your statement? Since when is allowing bars/nightclubs, alcohol and pork consumption a "model" of what an Islamic country should be? It's anything BUT Islamic. It's just pure democracy. Have you even been to the country?

It's hilarious how some Muslims defend Islam by defiling the very country that stands, in essence, as the pillar. It's like bandaging a gunshoot wound in the arm then shooting yourself in the foot right after. Makes no sense whatsoever. And yes, in essence, it IS a model of a true Islamic nation. If you wanna argue then argue over the culture, not the country's constitution which is solely based on the Quran when it comes to the points you mentioned above. The Quran does not preach violence.

Your hateful spat is so obvious, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents on the topic as if your argument is legitimate. Have fun hating.

Saudi Arabia is far from a model Islamic Nation. I'm no expert on Sharia Law but I know for certain that in order to to prosecute a man or woman for adultery, there need to be several witnesses. In Saudi Arabia, women are stoned on the words of a single man. There are countless other cases.

Except for Buddhists and Jews and Sikhs, all the religions kunts.

Ilovegames1992

Ahhh look, another thread about the crusades. ._.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]

Violence is only encouraged when one is left with no other choice. When someone's attacking you, you're going to defend yourself correct? If they back down then you're supposed to leave it at that and forgive...you can only kill when you have to.

The passage you posted is relative only when someone's going to kill you anyway...you can either defend yourself by subduing the enemy (not necessarily by death) or, only if there is no other plausible option, you can kill them in defense. You know there are plenty of cases with that, with many people who are in combat (warfare, etc.). You're not just gonna let someone kill you, you're gonna stop them from doing that. But killing should never be the first response.

Asim90

I hear you, and I agree. However, it seems so many want Islam to be seen as this religion with some sort of "Ghandi-ish" pacifistic mentality where it doesn't advocate violence whatsoever, and it bothers me. This whole logic of, "it's self-defense, therefor it's peaceful." is a bunch of hogwash. Islam IS violent under the right conditions, therefor nobody can claim it to be 100% peaceful.

Well that depends on what you interpret as peace. Is rolling over and letting somebody kill you unjustly resulting in peace? I think not. You certainly wouldn't have peace and that individual would still be roaming the Earth at large.

Is attacking and killing someone who's attacking you a peaceful act? Sure the intention may be to maintain peace, but the action itself is aggressive and voilent. I wouldn't call someone fighting back to defend themselves as peaceful. I'm not saying it's unjustified or that it's wrong, but at least call it for what it is instead of trying to sugar-coat it through context or semantics. Voilence is violence, period. I don't care for how just a cause it's done.

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I hear you, and I agree. However, it seems so many want Islam to be seen as this religion with some sort of "Ghandi-ish" pacifistic mentality where it doesn't advocate violence whatsoever, and it bothers me. This whole logic of, "it's self-defense, therefor it's peaceful." is a bunch of hogwash. Islam IS violent under the right conditions, therefor nobody can claim it to be 100% peaceful.

MirkoS77

Well that depends on what you interpret as peace. Is rolling over and letting somebody kill you unjustly resulting in peace? I think not. You certainly wouldn't have peace and that individual would still be roaming the Earth at large.

Is attacking and killing someone who's attacking you a peaceful act? Sure the intention may be to maintain peace, but the action itself is aggressive and voilent. I wouldn't call someone fighting back to defend themselves as peaceful. I'm not saying it's unjustified or that it's wrong, but at least call it for what it is instead of trying to sugar-coat it through context or semantics. Voilence is violence, period. I don't care for how just a cause it's done.

How is defending yourself aggressive? Aggression is imposing yourself on another, self defense is the oppsosite. In addition, here is the dictionary definition of violence:

" an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power "

Notice how it says unjust, if someone defends themself, how are they violent? If I went to punch you in the face and you pushed me away, would you call yourself violent? How is this sugarcoating? It's simply looking into something instead of making a stupid generalistation.

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I hear you, and I agree. However, it seems so many want Islam to be seen as this religion with some sort of "Ghandi-ish" pacifistic mentality where it doesn't advocate violence whatsoever, and it bothers me. This whole logic of, "it's self-defense, therefor it's peaceful." is a bunch of hogwash. Islam IS violent under the right conditions, therefor nobody can claim it to be 100% peaceful.

MirkoS77

Well that depends on what you interpret as peace. Is rolling over and letting somebody kill you unjustly resulting in peace? I think not. You certainly wouldn't have peace and that individual would still be roaming the Earth at large.

Is attacking and killing someone who's attacking you a peaceful act? Sure the intention may be to maintain peace, but the action itself is aggressive and voilent. I wouldn't call someone fighting back to defend themselves as peaceful. I'm not saying it's unjustified or that it's wrong, but at least call it for what it is instead of trying to sugar-coat it through context or semantics. Voilence is violence, period. I don't care for how just a cause it's done.

This is where I'm levelling with you. If you referred to my last response to you, you'd see the clear picture I'm trying to conceive. But I think you get what I'm saying.

How is defending yourself aggressive? Aggression is imposing yourself on another, self defense is the oppsosite. In addition, here is the dictionary definition of violence:

" an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power "

Notice how it says unjust, if someone defends themself, how are they violent? If I went to punch you in the face and you pushed me away, would you call yourself violent? How is this sugarcoating? It's simply looking into something instead of making a stupid generalistation.

Asim90

I don't know where exactly you grabbed your definition of violence from, but here's Merriam Webster's:

a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure.

b: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b: vehement feeling or expression : also: an instance of such action or feeling c: a clashing or jarring quality.

Or from Wiki:

Violence is defined by theWorld Health Organizationas the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.

An action does not need to be deemed unjust to be seen as violent. Don't be ridiculous. Violence is violence. So you'd hold the position that all the Allied actions in WWII were "peaceful" because they were fighting in a good cause against something that was unjust? That's bullsh*t, and you know it. The best you can say is they were fighting in the name of peace, but still through violence. I can't believe you're even attempting to argue this. Violence is not conditional, it is what it is no matter what.

And yes, if you punched me in the face and I shoved you, I'd be commiting an act of violence, regardless if it was justified. I sure as hell wouldn't say it's an act of peace.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

Well that depends on what you interpret as peace. Is rolling over and letting somebody kill you unjustly resulting in peace? I think not. You certainly wouldn't have peace and that individual would still be roaming the Earth at large.

Tigerman950

Is attacking and killing someone who's attacking you a peaceful act? Sure the intention may be to maintain peace, but the action itself is aggressive and voilent. I wouldn't call someone fighting back to defend themselves as peaceful. I'm not saying it's unjustified or that it's wrong, but at least call it for what it is instead of trying to sugar-coat it through context or semantics. Voilence is violence, period. I don't care for how just a cause it's done.

This is where I'm levelling with you. If you referred to my last response to you, you'd see the clear picture I'm trying to conceive. But I think you get what I'm saying.

Yea I get what you're saying.

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

How is defending yourself aggressive? Aggression is imposing yourself on another, self defense is the oppsosite. In addition, here is the dictionary definition of violence:

" an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power "

Notice how it says unjust, if someone defends themself, how are they violent? If I went to punch you in the face and you pushed me away, would you call yourself violent? How is this sugarcoating? It's simply looking into something instead of making a stupid generalistation.

MirkoS77

I don't know where exactly you grabbed your definition of violence from, but here's Merriam Webster's:

a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure.

b: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b: vehement feeling or expression : also: an instance of such action or feeling c: a clashing or jarring quality.

Or from Wiki:

Violence is defined by theWorld Health Organizationas the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.

An action does not need to be deemed unjust to be seen as violent. Don't be ridiculous. Violence is violence. So you'd hold the position that all the Allied actions in WWII were "peaceful" because they were fighting in a good cause against something that was unjust? That's bullsh*t, and you know it. The best you can say is they were fighting in the name of peace, but still through violence. I can't believe you're even attempting to argue this. Violence is not conditional, it is what it is no matter what.

And yes, if you punched me in the face and I shoved you, I'd be commiting an act of violence, regardless if it was justified. I sure as hell wouldn't say it's an act of peace.

Ok I guess we'll just have to disagree. Your example about War is totally different since innocent people unrelated to the conflict are affected. If you went to punch me and I pushed you away, to me that is not violence. If after I pushed you, I went after you and beat you too a pulp, that is not self defense.

That is seeking revenge, which is violent. I understand your point, and when innocent people are involved, it's best to avoid any conflict at all. BUT, I don't think self defense without unwarranted retallion is violent.