Islam a religion of peace?

A lot of blowing stuff up and chopping off heads for the religion of peace... Look at the history of Islam, it's current practice in the middle east, the backwards oppressive nature of the middle east, the range of death penalties regularly carried out in muslim countries... and it goes on and on.
Only clueless apologists for Islam or muslim propagandists themselves say such laughable drivel.
Islam in the middle east it has to be said is backwards medieval oppressive inflexible intolerant and very incompatible with modern western democracy... this is all starting to come out, even for the loony left.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Other members might verify this, you have it the other way around.

Muslim meens 'peaceable', islam means 'surrender'.

To answer the question of Haman10, surrender to god, not to a doctrine.

In another thread i've described a surrender to Wodan/Odin, of course it must be understood that this is esoteric.

a reply to: haman10

He is wrong. It does not literally means anything other than the single word submission. This is not mutually exclusive to it implying God. It just normally does. An American example would be phrasing it like "The Submission" where submission in general is not what is suggested, but rather a specific one.

It does not mean peace. It does not mean to God. It solely means submission. The context gives it these other properties. Not itself.

Yes, all people are submissive to a God if they believe in one I suppose. You asked where he got the definition, and demanded some pretty heavy credentials, I was hoping you were aware that's how Google defines it and that's a pretty good first piece of evidence.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Most muslims that i know told me that islam means to be at peace with god.

Have fun with your islam bashing thread.

with their god?

a reply to: earthling42

That was a quote by Muhammad Ali, I didn't say it. I was trying to demonstrate by including those quotes that many prominent figures within Islam push the notion that it is a religion of peace — a notion that the owner of this website was suggesting is false.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: earthling42

That was a quote by Muhammad Ali, I didn't say it. I was trying to demonstrate by including those quotes that many prominent figures within Islam push the notion that it is a religion of peace — a notion that the owner of this website was suggesting is false.

Ya, just to back you up a bit, he claimed all Religions are false, not Islam.

And it's true. No religion has ever had 100% success. Muslims kill people. Christians kill people. Buddhist have probably killed people. This is a fact of life.

I dont see why anyone would follow christianity, judiasm, or islam. They all have violent and oppressive texts in their holy books.

They are all far from religions of peace. Religions are there to control people. They are psuedo-spiritual and anti-intellectual ancient writings.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

I've heard up to 10% would go all in if needed.

Have you now? From whom, someone else talking out of their nethers?

It's ridiculous, given the facts, to equate jihadists and Muslims.

Yeah it is, that's why I didn't do that.

And it's foolish to put a cap or definitive number on the jihadis.

originally posted by: Kapusta
Hi!! Resident Muslim here / student of Islamic fiqh (law ).

For the 100th time clearly the OP has taken these verses out of contex. Let me guess using the vial site Answeringislam? Turned over night scholar ?

Of course you are. Have you ever tried addressing these verses to a qualified REAL Islamic Scholar? Of course you haven't. All you do is brows bias websites who misquote Scripture.


Their are many difering sects in Islam , some extreme , some mystical , some just....meh wacky.

Many of these sects have their own interpretation of scripture ,namely Hadith.. Also depending on where you are in the world certain practices have been introduced into islam and have been mistaken as a practice OF islamic tradition when they arnt. But people who lack the knowlege like your self don't have the ability to differentiate the two.

Sorta how the media groups us all together as one evil apratus.

Understand the quran and veres were relevant to issues going on during that time. Issues such as war etc etc.

Not to mention the understanding of metaphors contained within it.

Blah blah blah.. Wish i had more time to tell show you how off beat you are .

But honestly i am sick of this same old argument on ATS have you tried the search function ?

Who gives a rats about the details of who is what.

Wouldn't your vast scholarly knowledge be better put to the idiots doing the killings?

Seems like they need to be schooled more than we poor low information infidels.

Make some YT vids in arabic, yeah, let THEM know they have it all wrong and stop defending them!

a reply to: haman10

If I ever have some scholastic questions regarding Islam I'll be sure to find you. Thanks for letting everyone know your area of expertise, however limited it may be.

But my translation works for me. You believe in a god, so of course you imagine a god is what you submit to. I don't share in that belief, so it's just "submission" from this angle.

originally posted by: primus2012
Violence in the name of God hasn't been in any of Christianity's teachings. Christianity was born of Jesus Christ, not Abraham. It was a whole new thought process once Jesus' disciples followed his teachings.

Jesus validated the teachings of the Old Testament in Matthew 5. Christians can't ignore the horrible violence and genocide in the Old Testament, while still believing the teachings of the Old Testament.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
"Islam teaches tolerance, not hatred; universal brotherhood, not enmity; peace, and not violence." — Pervez Musharraf.

We need to separate beliefs and spirituality from organized religion.

Yes, spiritual belief systems can be centered around peace, tolerance and brotherhood.

However, organized religions do not have a history of peace, tolerance and brotherhood.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: primus2012
Violence in the name of God hasn't been in any of Christianity's teachings. Christianity was born of Jesus Christ, not Abraham. It was a whole new thought process once Jesus' disciples followed his teachings.

Jesus validated the teachings of the Old Testament in Matthew 5. Christians can't ignore the horrible violence and genocide in the Old Testament, while still believing the teachings of the Old Testament.

In Matthew 5 Jesus says not to abandon the laws of the prophets but teaches how to follow them His way, through Him, and still be in compliance with God. A new and improved way. Like the law against murder, He said to resolve the issue with your brother or sister before it even gets to that point. Find peace so there isn't even a thought of murder.
The law about eye for an eye, He said if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer them the other cheek, do not strike them back or seek revenge. If someone wants to steal your shirt, give them your coat as well.
The law about love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy, He said love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you. If all you do is love those who love you and greet those who are like you, how could you expect a reward for that?

Jesus does not validate the teachings of the Old Testament. He says He is here to fulfill the promise of the Messiah, that He brings something new, the New Covenant that will be salvation for the sinners. The Old Testament is there to study, to show what it was like before the Messiah came. The laws of Moses and teachings or stories of the prophets, like the 10 Commandments were taught by Jesus, but expanded on or modified in His way, the new way. Christians do not deny the Old Testament, but recognize it as Old. Following Jesus and trying to be as much like Him as one can is Christianity. Christians aren't aspiring to be like Abraham, David, Noah, or even Moses, they are aspiring to be like Jesus insomuch as a mortal sinner can. Jesus abhors violence, revenge, judgement of others. He certainly doesn't promote it or teach it.

originally posted by: primus2012
Jesus does not validate the teachings of the Old Testament.

I don't think it can be seen that way. Still reading in John 5, he states very clearly that he comes not to abolish the prophets, but to fulfill. And in Luke 24, references that the prophets begin with Moses and all that follow, and then in Matthew 23, specifically references the entire Canon.

And as if to confirm it all, in John 10 he says "the scriptures cannot be broken".

These and similar passages in the New Testament are Jesus affirming that the Old Testament can be trusted in matters of law, moral code, history, and creation. With that comes the atrocities and genocide committed by, or commanded by the Christian God.

This question strikes at the heart of the problem, If Islam is not a religion of peace yet purports its self to be, than we can safely say that all of its tenants should be put through the flames of discernment.

Every political system has their useful idiots, and Islam is a political system as much as it is a 'religious' system.

For every system there are extremists. There are moderates.

But make no mistake. The extremists run it.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

However, organized religions do not have a history of peace, tolerance and brotherhood.

Neither does what replaced organized religion. Governments of men.

At their basic core. The new boss is same as the old boss.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: primus2012
Jesus does not validate the teachings of the Old Testament.

I don't think it can be seen that way. Still reading in John 5, he states very clearly that he comes not to abolish the prophets, but to fulfill. And in Luke 24, references that the prophets begin with Moses and all that follow, and then in Matthew 23, specifically references the entire Canon.

And as if to confirm it all, in John 10 he says "the scriptures cannot be broken".

These and similar passages in the New Testament are Jesus affirming that the Old Testament can be trusted in matters of law, moral code, history, and creation. With that comes the atrocities and genocide committed by, or commanded by the Christian God.

Again, Jesus didn't deny how things were, but said that He is the New Covenant, meaning the new law.
John 8:7-11- "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."
Jesus changed things. God's reason for sending Jesus in the flesh was so He could pay the price for all sin through His death, and open up the door to salvation through His resurrection.

According to the Prophecies of both the Christians and Muslums at the end of the world, they will be in peace...resting, or burning according to them.

originally posted by: primus2012
Again, Jesus didn't deny how things were, but said that He is the New Covenant, meaning the new law.

I understand that, really, I do. But he also stated in several different ways that he's not intending to abolish or otherwise diminish the importance of the old prophets, and that the depictions of history in the OT are correct.

If contemporary Christians are to hold that major components of the OT are true and valid: creation, Noah, exodus, Abraham, and so on; the violence and genocide cannot be ignored. That's my point. And, the vengeful God of the Old Testament is very often used as a rationale for violent Christians today. Sound familiar?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

But when a Christian gets nastalgic and chooses to go back to their roots they get the hippidy dippidy teachings of Jesus, when a Muslims gets nastalgic and chooses to go back to their roots, (and not contextualize but treat the words as a living document of Allah ) they often become fundlementalists and extremist, why is that?