Islam - What's your view on it?

[baldgye]

Kind of ignorant then to ignore the other 169 pages?

Perhaps and I don't really think he made any great contribution. But usually the first few pages of a thread sets up the discussion and this thread starts off in a pretty ****ing abhorrent nonsense.

Page 2 is a belter with a user trying to suggest that Islam is actually a violent cult…

 

[Famine]

This thread is a vile cesspit of hate speech and Islamophobia, I don't give a damn it should be shut down.

It is an embarrassing stain on the Sim Racing community and I am in total disbelief that this thread has not been shut down

And I haven't read the Christianity thread but if it's another thread of people insulting other people because of their religion then yeah I'm mad about that one too

Please report the posts you see with users insulting other users.

 

[Imari]

Are you saying that you understand Islam better than those who have killed themselves for Islam?

I'm saying that I understand it better than you. I'm saying that I have a basic working knowledge of the history of the region, and that's not irrelevant to why people in these areas might choose to behave in these ways.

Killing yourself "for Islam" in the defense of your country is somewhat different to killing yourself for Islam because you just believe that all infidels should die. You know, the same way that a lot of soldiers in the US military believe that what they're doing is God's divine plan, and it may will be, but on a larger scale it can also be explained with a solid understanding of politics and conflicts between nations. Just because something is called a "holy war" doesn't mean that it doesn't have it's roots in well understood and obvious human interactions. If you bothered to look into why there are conflicts in these places you might see that there is a lot more going on than "Islam says all infidels must die". Protecting yourself can be both divinely inspired and entirely rational.

However, I take it from your response that you're not interested in looking into anything that might deflate your idea that all people who claim to have killed themselves for Islam do so for anything other than purely religious purposes. A shame, because frankly the recent history of most of the countries that you named is both interesting and instructive even without taking Islam into account.

This thread is a vile cesspit of hate speech and Islamophobia, I don't give a damn it should be shut down

It is an embarrassing stain on the Sim Racing community and I am in total disbelief that this thread has not been shut down

So report it and move on. But I think you'll find that you do not get to choose what other people talk about.

 

[Tank621]

For the record I am not going to sift through 8 years of a conversation to report everyone who's insulted religion, made islamaphopic comments, etc etc

I saw this thread on the side of my screen and clicked on it in disbelief, I read the 1st and most recent pages and I got the gist and so without meaning to make any meaningful contribution to the debate (because I am disgusted by what a lot of people have said) I expressed my dissatisfaction at the continued existence of this thread.

If you think I harbour any resentment towards rational debate you are wrong. I have no wish to prevent discussion.

However, I do not believe this thread construction a rational debate on a sensitive subject matter and in fact by the nature of being an internet gaming forum, I do not believe it can. Especially with a thread title so easily exploited by Islamaphopic individuals to express their views.

If this discussion about Islam was actually about the Islamic faith, what it means to people, why they follow it and what various aspects of Islam mean to their lives then that would be great.

But it isn't it appears to have been hijacked by people who are judging a religion based on a distorted perception of it.

 

[Famine]

For the record I am not going to sift through 8 years of a conversation to report everyone who's insulted religion, made islamaphopic comments, etc etc

Insulting religion and insulting people are not the same thing.

If you can find people insulting other people, as you suggested you could when you referred to the Christianity thread as something you hadn't read but would be mad about if it were "another thread of people insulting other people because of their religion", please report it as this is not permitted here.


I don't really know what qualifies as an "Islamaphobic" comment, but users here are free to question, denigrate, and ridicule any religion (or none) just as they are to adhere to one. They're not allowed to abuse other people though.

 

[Tank621]

Okay I don't want to inflame the situation any further but I simply cannot agree with the idea that you can seperate a religion from the followers that religion

The followers of a religion ARE the religion

In my mind any ridicule of a religion is a personal ridicule of the followers of that religion

And any comment saying that 'Islam is a violent religion' is by extension a statement which implies that the followers are violent and supporters of violence which is obviously untrue and abusive towards followers of Islam

 

[Famine]

Okay I don't want to inflame the situation any further but I simply cannot agree with the idea that you can seperate a religion from the followers that religion

Of course you can separate them.

The followers of a religion ARE the religion.

No, the officialdom of the religion is the religion. Not even the holy book of the religion is the religion, because it usually - and exclusively in Jehovah's Witnesses - requires interpretation to the masses from those in charge of it.

In my mind any ridicule of a religion is a personal ridicule of the followers of that religion

Cool. It isn't.

"[blank] is a religion of violence" does not require "all people who identify as [blank] religion are violent".

 

[Tank621]

A religion is not a religion without followers

It is the people that make the religion and if you say that a religion is violent, then what you are saying is that the followers of that religion are followers of violence. That is a fact.

And yes ridiculing a religion is ridiculing it's followers because it is flat out insulting their beliefs.

 

[Famine]

A religion is not a religion without followers

Cool. Doesn't make the religion a religion because of them - something with followers does not become a religion. Like Scientology.

The religion is the people in charge of it, who say what the books say.

It is the people that make the religion and if you say that a religion is violent, then what you are saying is that the followers of that religion are followers of violence. That is a fact.

No, it's an opinion - and it's not a correct one. You're falsely grouping people according to a single chosen characteristic.

And yes ridiculing a religion is ridiculing it's followers because it is flat out insulting their beliefs.

You've just described why it isn't. A person is not their beliefs, nor their religion.

Ridiculing - and indeed insulting - beliefs does not insult those who hold them. Indeed questioning belief is how we arrive at knowledge. If you start conflating the questioning of a belief with an insult against the person who holds that belief, they cannot gain new knowledge.

Anti-vax is a ridiculous belief. It merits ridicule. That doesn't mean that someone who is anti-vax is ridiculous, and we wouldn't allow someone who is anti-vax to be abused for it.

So is flat-earth belief. So is homophobia. So are religions. All are viable targets, but the people who hold the beliefs are not.

 

[Tank621]

I feel like this isn't really useful for either of us, so I'm just going to bugger off and enjoy the other parts of the forums.

Either way I understand why discussion about religion and politics is prohibited on other forums a lot more now.

Anyways, have a nice day, I'll probably see you around on a more peaceful part of the forums.

 

[Famine]

I feel like this isn't really useful for either of us

On the contrary:

questioning belief is how we arrive at knowledge.

Everyone should question their thoughts, and see what survives the process.

 

[Tank621]

The first rule of thumb I apply to any opinion is to challenge one's own far more than any others

I just think there's a very big difference between a discussion about Islam and another discussing whether or not it's evil

The latter is not a useful discussion for anyone and does nothing more than stir up resentment from both sides of the debate

 

[Famine]

The first rule of thumb I apply to any opinion is to challenge one's own far more than any others.

Hence my comment above. This forum does exactly that - although we do often see people dip in to provide their opinion and drop out (or rage) when other posters challenge their opinions.

People struggle with this section of the forums. A lot of people think they can post their opinion and render it free from questioning with "it's just my opinion". They can't. It's quite unusual for a gaming forum, and the site as a whole is better and smarter for it.

I just think there's a very big difference between a discussion about Islam and another discussing whether or not it's evil.

Why? What's the limit that should be placed on discussing aspects of a belief? Why should it be drawn there and not slightly further or nearer?

Why can we not have the discussion that [religion X] is evil? The fundamental principle guiding most religions is control, coercion, and corruption. Religious institutions are among the wealthiest in the world through gouging their adherents into a place in their respective good afterlives, and many occupy positions of extreme power around the globe - and I don't just mean high-ranking Islamic officials either. The head of the Church of England is the monarch and has notional (there in theory, never exercised in practice) power over our elected government, and her archbishops occupy seats in the House of Lords. The Pope has his own country, and his triple-tiered crown represents the fact that he is the king of kings.

Most religion is there for its own benefit and not for those who follow it - in fact at their expense - and thus could happily be classed as evil.

That's quite some distance from suggesting that those who follow the religions are evil. They aren't - and neither are those who follow no religion automatically good.

The latter is not a useful discussion for anyone and does nothing more than stir up resentment from both sides of the debate

Placing a limit on what may be discussed makes it simply appear like the topic is beyond questioning and benefits from favourable treatment not afforded to other topics. That simply drives discussion underground into echo chambers that fuel hate. It's better to have those opinions out in full view of the light so that others can challenge them. No-one learns from having their stupidity reinforced by other stupid people.

So long as no-one is crossing the line into abusing other people, there is no problem. If they are abusing other people, as you say, please report it so that the staff can deal with it.

 

[PocketZeven]

It is the people that make the religion and if you say that a religion is violent, then what you are saying is that the followers of that religion are followers of violence. That is a fact.
.

No, that is what me and others are debunking. People are violent and not religion. People who say that a religion is violent are ignorant. By stating the above you are agreeing that when people say religion=X then people = X. Which is incorrect.

 

[Imari]

No, that is what me and others are debunking. People are violent and not religion. People who say that a religion is violent are ignorant. By stating the above you are agreeing that when people say religion=X then people = X. Which is incorrect.

It's funny that it's the same argument that people use regarding video games making kids into school shooters. As we're pretty much all gamers here, I suspect everyone's on the same page with regards to games and violence. But somehow if we replace games with religion, the argument sounds a lot more plausible to some people.

It wouldn't surprise me much if the opinion "X causes violence" is more correlated with the person holding it's opinion of X rather than any objective correlation between X and violence. People who hate Islam/games/rock music/marijuana/whatever deem that to be the cause of some negative thing, and violence is a very easy and broad negative to ascribe.

 

[HenrySwanson]

They're both made up of...wait for it...people.

Yes people.

People who, let's not forget, are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and are going to be influenced by political parties, as they will with religions from the Baha'i to Zoroastrian

I explained that religions are not violent, but people are. Are you suggesting islam is more violent then christianity?

edit: or visa versa?

edit 2: I remember you agreeing to the claim that some ethnicities are more intelligent then others in another thread. Do you also think some ethnicities are more violent?

I believe it is more violent than Christianity. Same as I believe Christianity is more homophobic than Buddhism.

----

It's statistically proven that black people are more likely to be arrested for violent crime than other ethnicities by a significant amount but I don't know how much of that is due to biases in the criminal justice system and/or other factors such as socio-economic circumstance.

Playing to emotions? Says the guy picking out random attacks in the last few months as some sort of basis to prove that Islam is inherently violent.
Connection to what? Islam and terrorism/extremist violence are conjoined?

If you are going to say something as overwhelmingly ignorant as “Islam is inherently more violent than other religions”, you are going to have to provide overwhelming evidence and a hint that you have any idea what it is you are talking about. You’ve not even come close to approaching that stage. Posting random information about recent attacks is utterly meaningless. How can you prove that they are in anyway even related to core tenants of the religion they claim to represent? How can you prove that they haven’t been radicalised (might want to look that word up)? You’ve still to answer the question I posed in a previous post about brainwashing and why that would even be necessary in a naturally violent religion.

And no, you can’t talk about nuance, because you’ve not been dealing with nuance. You’ve only been dealing in the most extreme examples, removed all context and then used that as some sort of meaningful example…


The ignorance on display is bewildering.

I guess those attacks in 11 different countries in just a week are but an anomaly of extremist violence that has only recently blighted Islam:

Islam has never had any officially recognized tradition of pacifism, and throughout its history warfare has been an integral part of the Islamic theological system. Since the time of Muhammad, Islam has considered warfare to be a legitimate expression of religious faith, and has accepted its use for the defense of Islam. During approximately the first 1,000 years of its existence, the use of warfare by Muslim majority governments often resulted in the de facto propagation of Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence

....

Christians have held diverse views towards violence and non-violence through time. Currently and historically there have been four views and practices within Christianity toward violence and war: non-resistance, Christian Pacifism, Just War theory, and the Crusade (Holy or preventive war).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence

Pacifism is said to have been started by old Hindu and Buddhist teachings and the Mahabharata teaches us about ‘Ahimsa’ and it being the highest dharma.
https://hinduim.weebly.com/

Buddhism is generally seen as among the religious traditions least associated with violence. However, in the history of Buddhism, there have been acts of violence directed, promoted, or inspired by Buddhists. As far as Buddha's teachings and scriptures are concerned, Buddhism forbids violence for resolving conflicts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

Normative Judaism is not pacifist and violence is condoned in the service of self-defense. J. Patout Burns asserts that Jewish tradition clearly posits the principle of minimization of violence. This principle can be stated as "(wherever) Jewish law allows violence to keep an evil from occurring, it mandates that the minimal amount of violence be used to accomplish one's goal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_violence

The ignorance on display is bewildering.

I was talking about Hitler rather than Himmler. In any case, as Motadel notes in The Nazi Romance with Islam Himmler was giving a speech with a rather pragmatic reasoning - he was currying the favour of the Bosnian division to whom he was speaking. If you've extrapolated that speech to represent the thinking and motivation of Hitler then you've made an unfortunate mistake.

So it should be abundantly clear that it wasn't a religious war and the Nazis were just using religion for propaganda purposes.

Hitler vehemently despised Christianity, calling it the enemy of National Socialism. According to historian William Shirer, "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

Still, it says something if Hitler and Himmler are coming to the same conclusions about the violence potential of Islam vs Christianity as Islamic extremists....

I'm saying that I understand it better than you. I'm saying that I have a basic working knowledge of the history of the region, and that's not irrelevant to why people in these areas might choose to behave in these ways.

And also saying you know better than those who have died and killed for Allah....

Killing yourself "for Islam" in the defense of your country is somewhat different to killing yourself for Islam because you just believe that all infidels should die. You know, the same way that a lot of soldiers in the US military believe that what they're doing is God's divine plan, and it may will be, but on a larger scale it can also be explained with a solid understanding of politics and conflicts between nations.

The French attack by someone shouting "Allah akhbar" was in defence of their country?
The killing of 11 Christians in Nigeria was in defence of their country?
The honour killing in India was in defence of their country?
Al Shabaab militants in Kenya aren't actually "waging jihad against "enemies of Islam""(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shabaab_(militant_group)) but are defending their country?

However, I take it from your response that you're not interested in looking into anything that might deflate your idea that all people who claim to have killed themselves for Islam do so for anything other than purely religious purposes. A shame, because frankly the recent history of most of the countries that you named is both interesting and instructive even without taking Islam into account.

So by looking up the history of Afghanistan, suddenly it will all make sense?

 

[PocketZeven]

I believe it is more violent than Christianity. Same as I believe Christianity is more homophobic than Buddhism.

So in your logic, the country with the most muslims, should be the country with the most violent people. Am I correct?

Also you now suggest in the same post that people who believe in christianity are more homophobic then people who are buddhist. Am I correct?

Are you seeing the flaw in your ways?

 

[baldgye]

The ignorance on display is bewildering.

Finally we can agree on something.

 

[TexRex]

Yes people.

People who, let's not forget, are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and are going to be influenced by political parties, as they will with religions from the Baha'i to Zoroastrian

People are going to be influenced by any number of things, first and foremost being their own wants and wills. This is why it's better to condemn the specific actions of individuals than it is to condemn a belief system adopted by (or perhaps forced upon...by other people) countless individuals, the overwhelming majority of whom have not perpetrated acts any reasonable person would seek to condemn.

 

[PocketZeven]

Y
----

It's statistically proven that black people are more likely to be arrested for violent crime than other ethnicities by a significant amount but I don't know how much of that is due to biases in the criminal justice system and/or other factors such as socio-economic circumstance.

I can statistically prove that certain white people have caused more deaths then any other ethnicity. What does that prove?

So by looking up the history of Afghanistan, suddenly it will all make sense?

Persian empire have had a history of violence for centuries before Islam existed.

I guess those attacks in 11 different countries in just a week are but an anomaly of extremist violence that has only recently blighted Islam:

Islam has never had any officially recognized tradition of pacifism, and throughout its history warfare has been an integral part of the Islamic theological system. Since the time of Muhammad, Islam has considered warfare to be a legitimate expression of religious faith, and has accepted its use for the defense of Islam. During approximately the first 1,000 years of its existence, the use of warfare by Muslim majority governments often resulted in the de facto propagation of Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence

From the exact same link you posted from Wikipedia:

"Statistical academic studies have found that violent crime is less common among Muslim populations than among non-Muslim populations"

"The average homicide rate in the Muslim world was 2.4 per 100,000, less than a third of non-Muslim countries which had an average homicide rate of 7.5 per 100,000."

 

[HenrySwanson]

So in your logic, the country with the most muslims, should be the country with the most violent people. Am I correct?

Also you now suggest in the same post that people who believe in christianity are more homophobic then people who are buddhist. Am I correct?

Are you seeing the flaw in your ways?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying the religion is more violent/homophobic. There will be more people killing in the name of Islam than Christianity; there will be more people justifying their homophobic attitudes because of Christianity than Buddhism.

Finally we can agree on something.

Hmm I was expecting (hoping for) something more substantial.

People are going to be influenced by any number of things, first and foremost being their own wants and wills. This is why it's better to condemn the specific actions of individuals than it is to condemn a belief system adopted by (or perhaps forced upon...by other people) countless individuals, the overwhelming majority of whom have not perpetrated acts any reasonable person would seek to condemn.

This is the "if Islam was so violent, why aren't all Muslims violent" strain of logic.

I'll ask in response to this:
"If Islamic jurisprudence considers adultery a sin punishable by stoning, why don't all Muslims stone adulterers?"

Your response would likely be they would consider this a harsh punishment, which is probably true yet it doesn't mean that Islam thinks it is too harsh

Consider this little piece about adultery from article in the WaPo about the "myths of Sharia":

Adultery? Yes, corporal punishment for extramarital sex is Koranic in origin, but it comes with an extremely high evidentiary burden of proof: four eye-witnesses

So you see the author doesn't deny that Islam sets out that adulterers should be stoned to death - she only justifies it by meekly suggesting that it is "up to the state" to decide (which is her interpretation). You might say Christianity has a similar law in the OT, but the difference is that it is ameliorated by the passage in the NT that tells of Jesus saying "who is without sin, yadda yadda yadda...." Such a similar softening of stance in regards to adultery isn't found when assessing gay relationships, which I believe is a big reason for homophobia in certain Christian communities.

I can statistically prove that certain white people have caused more deaths then any other ethnicity. What does that prove?

If it's in the name of white people (e.g. white nationalism), then that ideology is evil....

Persian empire have had a history of violence for centuries before Islam existed.

OK and?

From the exact same link you posted from Wikipedia:

"Statistical academic studies have found that violent crime is less common among Muslim populations than among non-Muslim populations"

I'm talking about violent crime in the name of Islam - that's what we're looking at.

"The average homicide rate in the Muslim world was 2.4 per 100,000, less than a third of non-Muslim countries which had an average homicide rate of 7.5 per 100,000."

That's the homicide rate.

Remember when we looked at the Global Peace Index to see how countries compared?

That took 23 things into account:

1 Number and duration of internal conflicts[6] UCDP, IEP Total number
2 Number of deaths from external organized conflict UCDP Armed Conflict Dataset Total number
3 Number of deaths from internal organised conflict International Institute for Strategic Studies, Armed Conflict Database Total number
4 Number, duration, and role in external conflicts UCDP Battle-related Deaths Dataset, IEP Total number
5 Intensity of organised internal conflict EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
6 Relations with neighbouring countries EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
7 Level of perceived criminality in society EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
8 Number of refugees and displaced persons as percentage of population UNHCR and IDMC Refugee population by country or territory of origin, plus the number of a country's internally displaced people (IDP's) as a percentage of the country's total population
9 Political instability EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
10 Impact of terrorism Global Terrorism Index (IEP) Quantitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
11 Political terror Amnesty International and US State Department Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
12 Number of homicides per 100,000 people UNODC Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (CTS); EIU estimates Total number
13 Level of violent crime EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
14 Likelihood of violent demonstrations EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
15 Number of jailed persons per 100,000 people World Prison Brief, Institute for Criminal Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London Total number
16 Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people UNODC CTS; EIU estimates Total number; Civil police force distinct from national guards or local militia[7]
17 Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP The Military Balance and IISS Cash outlays of central or federal government to meet costs of national armed forces, as a percentage of GDP, scores from 1 to 5 based on percentages[8]
18 Number of armed-services personnel per 100,000 The Military Balance and IISS All full-time active armed-services personnel
19 Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as recipient (imports) per 100,000 people SIPRI Arms Transfers Database Imports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people[9]
20 Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as supplier (exports) per 100,000 people SIPRI Arms Transfers Database Exports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people
21 Financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions United Nations Committee on Contributions and IEP percentage of countries’ “outstanding payments versus their annual assessment to the budget of the current peacekeeping missions” over an average of three years, scored from 1–5 scale based on percentage of promised contributions met
22 Nuclear and heavy weapons capability The Military Balance, IISS, SIPRI, UN Register of Conventional Arms and IEP 1–5 scale based on accumulated points; 1 point per armoured vehicle and artillery pieces, 5 points per tank, 20 points per combat aircraft, 100 points per warship, 1000 points for aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine[10]
23 Ease of access to small arms and light weapons

Taken from an earlier post, we found that out of the top twenty countries, Christianity is the majority religion in over 80% of them, and in the bottom twenty Islam is the majority in 60%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

Did I say that Muslims were more peaceful than Christians? Nope. But it lends support to the idea that Islam is a more violent ideology and a cause of more violence. @UKMikey provided a link that went into further analysis

 

[baldgye]

Hmm I was expecting (hoping for) something more substantial.

I'd given up on that a few pages ago...

Taken from an earlier post, we found that out of the top twenty countries, Christianity is the majority religion in over 80% of them, and in the bottom twenty Islam is the majority in 60%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

oooo here we go pulling random numbers and facts and trying to draw a link to Islam being violent... I'm hoping at some point you'll have worn out all your crayons.

 

[TexRex]

This is the "if Islam was so violent, why aren't all Muslims violent" strain of logic.

It's actually the "people are violent" strain of logic.

Of course, people are more likely to be violent without threat of appropriate punishment, as appears to be the case when people in power in a particular area deem violent acts in the name of a particular belief system permissible.

The problem is still people and not the belief system.

 

[SestoScudo]

Christianity been pacifistic at the start because the christians did not make a state or whatever it is. Christians lived in two empires the Romans and Persians.

So in many ways they had to be pacifistic because they controlled nothing.

For Muslims it was different because the Arabian peninsula was not ruled by any empire.

Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him did not start the war against Arab pagans. The Arab pagans started it by killing and persecuting early Muslims. Despite migrating to Yathrib the Arab Pagans still did not leave them alone.

So to henry swanson so tell me how can you stay peaceful and pacifistic in a region where war was the norm. Muslims had a choice either fight or be destroyed.

Muslims even formed their own state.

State and war go together. When the Roman Empire became christian this is when Christianity became the state religion with this meant Christians can now wage war as they now control the state.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'd given up on that a few pages ago...

oooo here we go pulling random numbers and facts and trying to draw a link to Islam being violent... I'm hoping at some point you'll have worn out all your crayons.

What is this....

It's actually the "people are violent" strain of logic.

Of course, people are more likely to be violent without threat of appropriate punishment, as appears to be the case when people in power in a particular area deem violent acts in the name of a particular belief system permissible.

The problem is still people and not the belief system.

So we only blame the person if they commit violence because of a promise of a reward and not the ideology?

So to henry swanson so tell me how can you stay peaceful and pacifistic in a region where war was the norm. Muslims had a choice either fight or be destroyed.

Jesus said that His followers would be persecuted, even in places of peace :
https://dailyverses.net/persecution

He even admonished a disciple for using a sword in retaliation to His arrest telling him that "whoever lives by the sword, dies by the sword". So yes, I believe it is possible to preach a message of peace regardless of the circumstances.

As for the rest of your post, does that mean you believe Muhammad only committed acts of violence in self-defence?

 

[Scaff]

He even admonished a disciple for using a sword in retaliation to His arrest telling him that "whoever lives by the sword, dies by the sword". So yes, I believe it is possible to preach a message of peace regardless of the circumstances.

He also attacked a load of people with a whip to get them out of a place they had every right to be, killed a villages entire herd of pigs and cursed someone's fig tree to point it withered and died, so was quite the hypocrite.

 

[TexRex]

So we only blame the person if they commit violence because of a promise of a reward and not the ideology?

You'd first need to establish this as the actual reason for an individual perpetrating such an act.

It seems much more likely an individual would perpetrate an act of violence--which is to say one that isn't in one's own defense--because they desire to do so. That more individuals don't is likely credit to a system that administers appropriate comeuppance unto those guilty of such acts, and the absence of such a system is sure to invite an increased rate of such acts.

People choose to bear ideologies. More than that, people choose aspects of ideologies that fit their own wants and wills, and even manipulate aspects of ideologies so that they better fit their own wants and wills.

 

[baldgye]

What is this....

What you are doing, is actually the same as what racists in the US do when trying to match rates of black crime/imprisonment to the lie that black people are just naturally more violent.

Every argument you have made you've made in bath faith. Desperately trying to push this narrative and clawing at any stat you can find trying to draw a meaningful conclusion, ignorant to the fact that in order to actually draw an actual conclusion you need vast amounts of information, data, context and an understanding of the subject you are talking about. Given that Islam has existed for over a thousand years and has over a billion followers.
You called me ignorant earlier (or inferred it) as I had done, however the difference between us, was that I'm not making any claim or assertion. Instead what I'm doing is requiring your monumental claims, to have some sort of meaningful evidence to support them. This;

Taken from an earlier post, we found that out of the top twenty countries, Christianity is the majority religion in over 80% of them, and in the bottom twenty Islam is the majority in 60%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

When simply pulled out of the air, isn't relevant to anything and renders you incapable of drawing any meaningful conclusion. Just as you trying to assert that acts of terrorism over Christmas, where on their own indicative of Islam being inherently violent.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What you are doing, is actually the same as what racists in the US do when trying to match rates of black crime/imprisonment to the lie that black people are just naturally more violent.

Every argument you have made you've made in bath faith. Desperately trying to push this narrative and clawing at any stat you can find trying to draw a meaningful conclusion, ignorant to the fact that in order to actually draw an actual conclusion you need vast amounts of information, data, context and an understanding of the subject you are talking about. Given that Islam has existed for over a thousand years and has over a billion followers.
You called me ignorant earlier (or inferred it) as I had done, however the difference between us, was that I'm not making any claim or assertion. Instead what I'm doing is requiring your monumental claims, to have some sort of meaningful evidence to support them. This;



When simply pulled out of the air, isn't relevant to anything and renders you incapable of drawing any meaningful conclusion. Just as you trying to assert that acts of terrorism over Christmas, where on their own indicative of Islam being inherently violent.

Erm, but in the analysis that UKMikey posted on the link between religion and the GPI, it found that 21 or the 35 conflicts in 2013 had religion as either the main or contributing factor.

Of those 21, all 21 (that's 100% chief) have Islam as at least one of the religions involved.

If you tell me that that is an argument in bad faith and "clawing" at statistics then I really think you are the one being disingenuous.

You'd first need to establish this as the actual reason for an individual perpetrating such an act.

It seems much more likely an individual would perpetrate an act of violence--which is to say one that isn't in one's own defense--because they desire to do so. That more individuals don't is likely credit to a system that administers appropriate comeuppance unto those guilty of such acts, and the absence of such a system is sure to invite an increased rate of such acts.

People choose to bear ideologies. More than that, people choose aspects of ideologies that fit their own wants and wills, and even manipulate aspects of ideologies so that they better fit their own wants and wills.

But isn't that why we proscribe certain groups?

 

[TexRex]

But isn't that why we proscribe certain groups?

Is it?

If you have an argument to make in an effort to contradict what I've said, the onus is on you to make a reasoned attempt rather than link to the wiki page of unrelated subject to which you perceive parallels.