Islam is a Misunderstood Religion
Islam is a religion that is not widely understood in the
United States although there are many American converts to Islam. In some circles, Islam has also falsely been
characterized as promoting violence. To be clear there are some passages in the
Holy Koran, the Holy Bible, and the Holy Torah which contain language that
seems questionable in these days and times but was perfectly normal in the
times in which these books were revealed. The religion of Islam does not
promote violence. However, there are extremists,
who misuse religion, be it Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, to try to
rationalize their extreme views. To suggest that 1.5 Muslims are somehow
inherently violent is ridiculous and Islamophobic.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
People have not changed at all, if anything as times progresses the morality of the human race sinks to new lows.People still steal, commit adultery, incest, polytheism,etc.. in these days as well as during the days/times that the old/new testaments and qur'aan were revealed. Don't let science and IT fool you into thinking that we are this elevated being, we are animals without divine guidance. Islaam is the sternest against violence and oppression, and you people know this. The price for freedom is steep in America wherein we have the largest prison population in the world due to people committing wide ranging offences. Even the female prison population is exploding in America, this is what happens when people are left to their own intellects(democracy,humanism), this includes those academics who buy cars with manuals in the glove department, but don't believe that the creator has guidelines for "his" creation, so smart you are dumb, eyes wide shut. Islaam does not condone violence in anyway trust me, are some Muslims violent yes, but Islaam does not condone it at all.
Islam promotes subjugating, or failing that, killing all that aren't Muslims. "Islam is a Religion of Peace" ....is the most completely BS statement that exists. Muslims are engaged in either actively killing all other religion 's followers or sitting back and supporting the killings through their silence. Muslims are the most deadly threat against the free world that exists today. They have nothing but contemp ane hatred for anyone besides Muslims.
Not 1.5 Muslims, presumably.
To measure whether a religion incites violence, we can make the following assumptions.
Let's say that X percent of the population is violently crazy. That means X percent of Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc. are crazy enough to commit acts of terrorism . Of course, all of these groups have had their terrorists. What should be looked at is whether incidences of these violent people are backed by their religions, inspired by them in some way.
If we're assuming that Bin Laden is the psychological equivalent of the guy who murdered people because his neighbors dog told him to (which is a valid assumption), then we can't assume that Islam is more violent than anything else any more than we can assume that neighbors dog is a particularly violent dog. This extends if we're looking at an individual-by-individual case basis. What the issue is is whether there's a bunch of good examples of institutionalized violence in either the Qu'ran or the dominant Islamic philosophies that are in place today.
Islam in America is much like anything else in America. It's moderate, thoughtful, and places itself in line with human rights . If anything, I'd call Islam in America MORE thoughtful than other American religious groups, like fundamentalist Christian groups. There hasn't been a massive American Muslim outcry against teaching evolution in schools , or sex ed , or wanting to put a codified piece of Shari'a law into a court where a Muslim is a judge.
Islam outside of America, however, is a different story. Everyone can name, off the top of their heads, dozens of horrifying, horrifying events that were committed by people in the name of Islam in recent years. The question is, does the RELIGION of Islam have a responsibility to answer to the atrocities committed in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. Is there an official Islamic response on the Mutaween? That sort of thing.
I'm certain there's no official Christian response on the Holocaust, which many Jews see as a typically Christian crime . I'm certain there's no official Christian response on the terrorism against abortion clinics. And to be completely fair, there's no official Jewish response to the rare cases of Judaic religiously-inspired violence (There aren't that many Jews, so the X percentage involves a pretty tiny amount of people). But the debate must be on the following things.
A) Is one neccesary? Do the moderates have the responsibility to pull the extremists in by condemning their actions?
a1) Does such a condemnation carry with it an implicit agreement that their particular religion is faulty?
B) Is there tangible evidence that the percentage of per-capita religiously-inspired violent acts is higher in the Muslim community than in the non-Muslim community? It can be either a historical or modern basis.
b1) If yes, can the Muslim quality be isolated? Adjust that percentage for economic factors, etc. Is it still unusually high?
If the answer to B is yes, then of course other religions have to come into play, and Christianity does not hold up well to Buddhism, Judaism, etc. Christianity can enter this game, but must feel ready to apply the same standards onto itself, and I feel pretty confident (so should most people) that Christianity won't come out as the most peaceful of the peaceful.
Even though has some missing parts and doesn't specifially showing knowledge about the religion of Islam, overall fair comments from a neutral person.
I would like to point out the fact that Jews of Europe were saved by Ottoman Empire (the most crowded Sephardic Jewish community of the world became Salonica in time but after capture of Salonica by Greeks Jews gradually had to leave the city), and also many Protestants were saved and accepted to Ottoman lands at the time of Martin Luther.
If the subject is violence and religion relativity Christians are the last ones to have a word about it, since their history, even today, is full of atrocities against people.
"I'm certain there's no official Christian response on the Holocaust, which many Jews see as a typically Christian crime ."
I don't know what you mean by official response but the vast majority of Christian leaders have most certainly condemned the Holocaust publicly. Most recently a priest who denied the Holocaust was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. If Jews refer to the Holocaust as a "Typical Christian Crime" they are mistaken. BTW, Living in NY I know many Jews and none of them feel that way.
I agree with your assessment on the Islamic violence not being religious based. It's cultural. The Arabs are historically a nomadic people living in a harsh environment . They had to fight to survive. That tradition has carried through to today. It's accepted as a fact of life.
"Christianity does not hold up well to Buddhism, Judaism, etc. Christianity can enter this game, but must feel ready to apply the same standards onto itself, and I feel pretty confident (so should most people) that Christianity won't come out as the most peaceful of the peaceful."
You sound a little anti Christian here. Once again historical violence in Christianity is cultural, not based on religious teachings. Jesus' teachings were counter to the violence of the Old Testament (the Jewish Tanakh) and he referred it as a new way. Judaism has a record of historical violence every bit as bad as Christianity. If you read the teachings if Jesus you will learn the fundamental values are based on non violence.
All in all none of the major Religions are inherently violent or promote violence. There are however certain people and factions within those religions who twist the teachings of that religion to promote their own violent agenda.
What I meant by the typically Christian crime is, when studying the history of antisemitism in Europe and America, the ramp-up to the holocaust invariably a) involves Christians, or b) involves Christian ideology, usually in the form of either quoting New Testament verses in an attempt to point out the evil of the Jews, or referencing the death of Christ as an excuse for Jews. The holocaust itself, while being perpetrated, was certainly defended by Christian ideology in Germany, throughout Europe, and indeed by the Catholic church , who, under Pope Pius XII, did nothing to stop the deaths despite learning of it quite early in the process.
Regarding the holocaust denying priest, you're actually talking about Richard Williamson, whom pope Benedictine XVI readmitted quite recently. Williamson wasn't excommunicated because he is a holocaust denier--He is, and the uproar in the church community is enormous due to it--but because he was politically opposed to, as a member of the society of Saint Pius X, a group opposing church reforms way back when. So, if we're taking that as a sign of what the Catholic church thinks, we can simply say that "Opposing church reform gets you excommunicated, but believing the gas chambers never existed is fine by us."
And this Catholic Pope doesn't have the GREATEST track record for being a friend the Jews.
See: The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965 by Michael Payer,
and: Removing Anti-Jewish Polemic from our Christian Lectionaries by Norman A. Beck.
You apparently agree with the rest. That is flawed people within the religions, not the religions them selves that are the problem.
OK I spelled Holocaust wrong. Don't point that out please. It adds nothing to the discussion.
Do you imply the books existed before people wrote them? Whose library card did that come off of?
Every religion has a book with hate cruelty and violence associated with it. Unfortunately Islam has the preponderance of advocates, that take the words in the books with the old interpretation as still valid or true. About the only religion that I can find that does not promote violence is the pagans. They have been mis-characterized by other religions, but there is no scripture they have that promotes violence by their goddess.
As long as the adherents choose to follow the violent passages as such, then yes Islam is more violent. You can't place a 20th century spin on the book and ignore the many who follow a 12th century pattern of behavior.
If it isn't about violence, then where are the fatwas, against the violence? Personally, I draw the line at blaming women for being raped.
As for 9/11, it only brought Islam to the civilized public attention. No one has had to deal with people having their hand cut off for stealing, in civilized cultures for many many years. In the US, they don't hang a man for being a horse thief anymore. The population has gotten past that notion. In Islamic countries on the whole they have not. I would say the same of Christianity, if they were still having their neighbors over for barbecues. (of their neighbors)
Islams even fight other Islams over Islam. Go figure. The view of the Islam religion isn't about Islam itself. Most people don't give a ding dong about the holy books in the world have to say. What they do care about is what the adherents use as an excuse to perpetrate atrocities on other humans with.
You want the public image to be cleared up for Islam? Then start cleaning up the rank and file members using Islam as their excuse to be uncivilized. You have a real PR problem on your hands with the civilized world. No one buys into the lip service. Instead of 99 virgins, let the suicide bombers know they are going to hell instead. Same for the rapists, not the women. You talk of tolerance, and it would seem to civilized people the tolerance you have is for your own peoples mis-behavior. Denounce the old Islam and come up with the Islam rev 2, for the civilized peoples.
Just do something real for a change. I'm not desperately trying to grasp anything about Islam. I'm trying to grasp as to when the majority of Islam in the world will grasp civilized behavior. Most of them in the US seem to have "gotten" it. What's with the rest in the third world who don't?
The crusades and the Spanish inquisition are over. Today, the hijacked religion is Islam. New leaders need to stand up, expose the false teachers, and shut down the schools that promote violence. Otherwise, non-Muslims are going to view Muslims exactly the way that Muslims viewed the crusaders of old. They already do. Thus this discussion.
It's not complicated or hard to understand. Fix it or force other religions to react in kind, or worse. In the long run, Jihad only works on pacifists. If the proliferation of Islam was the goal, then attacking the USA on 9/11/2001 was strategic idiocy. Look what the result of Pearl Harbor was on Japan. Take a lesson from Japan. Islam needs to get anybody that thought that 9/11 was a good idea out of their leadership loop.
In order to see what a religion promotes, you must look to their texts. Obviously with in Islam, just as within Christianity or any other religion, there are many disagreements on what the text means. When you look to the Koran you find similar teachings as the bible- love, and nonviolence. To those who disagree I pose the question- have you read the Koran? Also I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of Christians who argue that Islam preaches violence- crusades anyone? (i'm christian, by the way) What we have to realize is that Islam is not inherently violent, and vastly misunderstood. It is the radical interpretation of Islam that is violent, not islam itself.
Like Christianity, there is enough in the Koran to find what you look for. Clearly a VERY large number of Muslims interpret the Koran as an incitement to violence. There were Christian monks during the Crusades who didn't participate - who kept to peaceful ways, but the in main, I would have to say Christianity was not a force for peace during that time.
So it is with Islam today. Until the advocates of violence and murder are cast out and repudiated by the rest of the religious establishment, Islam will remain a source of, rather than a refuge from, violence.
The main problem is that Islam seems to be misunderstood by most *moderate* Muslims. If they were to read the Koran they would see that it does literally promote violence. Saying that a call to kill infidels means something different today than it did hundreds of years ago is simply ignoring the meaning.
"The religion of Islam does not promote violence."
Simply saying this does not make it true, however much you would like this to be the case. The evidence, written in the Koran, contradicts you.
"To suggest that 1.5 Muslims are somehow inherently violent is ridiculous and Islamophobic."
Where in the original post is it asserted that Muslims are "inherently" violent? Nowhere. You have simply erected an emotionally charged straw man.
Sadly, I do not know enough about the religion to form an intelligent opinion based upon facts. However, if Islam is truly the misunderstood religion you claim, why then are there not more Muslims speaking out with strong and loud voices, denouncing the evil acts of those who behave so violently and viciously and claim that it is the will of Allah? Their vicious and violent acts do not “seem questionable” – they are abominable and uncivilized . Muslim leaders the world over need to address this publicly, much more than has been done up until now. Yes, here and there some do speak out against the terroristic acts, but they are in the minority and few and far between.
Your last sentence does not speak to the question you are trying to answer. The question is: ‘Does Islam promote violence?” Nobody has said that Muslims are inherently violent. I agree. That would be ridiculous. It does seem though, that it seems to promote violence in people who were not born that way.
of killing innocent people (terrorism), by very important scholars and organisations, but they are not coordinated well (because internally most muslim countries are struggling for democracy against oppressive regimes so it logically follows that they won't function properly or represent the will of the majority while this is happening) and also they are rarely reported in media outlets for two reasons; one is that translation is a bit monopolised to/from mideastern languages by an Israeli organisation (MEMRI) and the other is that most large western media outlets are in private hands.
Your point is well-taken. However, I feel that there have not been enough people in the American Muslim community right here in the U.S.A. who have really spoken out in sufficient numbers, with strong voices and with great frequency.
Maybe North American Muslims need to be more politically active
I certainly know that this is the case here in the UK (where I live). The main reason here may be that muslims aren't just used to being politically active - and muslim political organisations need to sort out their leadership and running mechanisms properly to make them efficient enough to function! It is their job to encourage people and channel their views to the general public.
I really do not know why they are not more vocal here in the states. It might be that since 9/11, too many Americans seem to lump muslims together with terrorists. This is most unfortunate, but this could possibly be a reason why they are not more outspoken and prefer to keep a low profile. This is really too bad because we mainly hear about the bad people and hardly hear anything from the good people.