Debate:Islam; Religion of peace?
This has always been an interesting topic for me; Islam : Good or Bad, basically it boils down to the holy books, how they tell Muslims to treat people,and how seriously Muslims are supposed to take the bad bits. I've put up a few leaders to help anyone along who wants to take the bait... --JeffD 21:22, 22 December 2009 (EST)
I'm going to have to go with no. I'm not a bigot, I don't advocate for repression of Muslims, and Islamic theology fascinates me ; if you check out my edits. However, as someone who is steeped in fundamentalist Christianity (which I don't see as a swear word unlike most people..) and it's calling to defend each other as brothers, separate the obligations to God and the state, and to avoid blood shed as something inherently good. There are plenty of bad bits in the bible, but no sensible christian takes them seriously, ie. placing them in the proper context of the dispensation in which God grants Israel the right of conquest to the Levant. In the Quran and Hadith, I just don't see it.
Let's begin with the etymology...as religionofpeace.com puts it.. "Lesser educated Muslims sometimes claim that the root word of Islam is “al-Salaam,” which is “peace” in Arabic" Slm fairly clearly in Arabic (fairly, because Arabic is a very ambiguous language) means surrender,submission; which has no precedent for a peaceful connotation. So from the very beginning the potential convert is presented a deception, which is allowed for in Islam as well, Sahih Buckari records that the Prophet said.. "war is deceiet", which is the seminal root of the doctrine of Taqyiyya, ie. lieing to your enemy (the non believer) to furhter Islam's aim; the formation of the worldwide supertribe (ie. transforming the whole world into late 7th century Arabia)
Speaking of late 7th century Arabia, the Quran and Hadith, and association traditions are full of anti-semitism, and laws which are liberation for women of the time, but currently, totally bunk. Funny that they are bunk now, because the middle east doesn't seem to agree on that point.The leaders have to actively oppose their population in order to pass "pro-western" laws, ie. laws which extend to Muslims rights that we in the western world consider fundamental to man. Not to brag for the west, but we've done pretty good since we cast off the shackles of theocracy and willful ignorance in the early pre-modern era,and I don't think that's a spurious correlation... if you compare the muslim world , which claims that they are not prosperous because of the colonisation enacted for a brief period of time by england and france, they are actually declining in GDP and intellectual output. Step out and look at South Korea and Japan, and prepare to amaze yourself, two totally destroyed and totally alien countries to the west becoming leaders in the world economy, even as the west tried to help the arab states the entire way. Not to mention that even with the founding of Oil wealth, Iran is the only state to have invested to any extent in democratic institutions and the well being of its population (dis-regarding the last few years of the ahmadinejad era and any disagreements you may have with the Khomenie regime ; Iran has the most western state in the middle east besides Turkey)
Not to mention that Muhammad was a pedophile sand pirate, I'd probably lose my spot at University if I admitted that. Horrible double standard, what sort of true prophet rapes slave girls and marries children, eww.
And loads of other stuff ... so-called toleration, entirely rubbish, read Bat Ye-or. --JeffD 21:22, 22 December 2009 (EST)