Changes

Line 1: Line 1:  
{{Debate}}
 
{{Debate}}
−
=Yes=
  −
  −
The mainstream is by definition that branch of an organization which is most vocal and controls the policies of the organization.  Thus we refer to the mainstream media as the most visible outlet of journalism, with the most access to the policy makers.  The non-violent branch of Islam may be the numerical majority, but in terms of influence they are of no consequence, because they either fear or choose not to speak out.  [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  −
  −
In addition, there are countless verses in the Qur'an permitting violence against infidels:
  −
-"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority." (Koran 3:151); this verse enjoins Muslims to violence against Christians specifically, as Mohammed incorrectly alleged that believers join 'Companions' with Allah.
  −
-"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them" (9:5). This verse, for which Osama bin Laden has thanked Allah, exhorts true Muslims to kill the so - called 'infidels' (including Christians and Jews).  It also abrogates countless verses from the Meccan era in the Koran that instructed Muslims to tolerate those of other beliefs.
  −
  −
As much as I'd hate to agree, any Muslim that follows the Koran to the letter(or close to it) are inherently violent( or sworn to it). The Koran isn't organized by dates, but rather by length. So, contradictions start to appear, so to deal with this, Muslim Clerics claimed "sword verses". Essentially meaning, that verses later in the Koran trump earlier verses, and unfortunately the violent anti-(everyone who is Muslim) verses  replaced the happy, cheerful, "We're all brothers" verses. So yes, ACTUAL Islam is extremely violent. 
  −
  −
:main·stream      /ˈmeɪnˌstrim/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meyn-streem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
  −
–noun
  −
1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend
  −
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
  −
:Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
  −
  −
By definition, you're completely wrong.  --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  −
  −
You confuse mainstream Islam with mainstream Muslims; although the vast majority of Mohammedans are likely peaceful, the Qur'an permits the violent conquest and subjugation of 'infidels'.
  −
  −
:: (Curses!  Rusty beat me to it.  But see what I would've written) - WHAT!?  "Mainstream" = "the principal or dominant course ([http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream see here]).  Dominant means the larger.  The majority of Muslims are peaceful and contribute ''directly and greatly'' to American and European culture.  By definition, too, the radical elements of a group of people are not the "mainstream."-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 17:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  −
  −
In some countries, the "mainstream" attitude seems to be one of condonement. I am not sure whether that is the case in all Islamic nations (i.e. Turkey or Indonesia). One thing that we can all agree on, I hope, is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  −
  −
:Squeaky wheels and grease isn't the debate topic.  Please stay on the issue at hand, else intelligent conversation is impossible.  Thank you.  --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  −
  −
Rusty, quit being ridiculous. You know what I'm saying. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  −
  −
: Mainstream doesn't mean nation-by-nation - it means Islam as a whole over time.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 17:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  −
  −
There's not one Islamic movement, just as there's not one Christian movement.  But, as much as it is taboo to mention it--horror of horrors, to suggest that maybe one religion might be better than another--there are Islamic movements which are not at all marginal or, within the context of their societies, "extreme"--i.e., which are mainstream--and are very vocal in endorsing violence.  This is just a fact, OK?  It's not PC, it's just ''true''.  I suppose that, if you insist on finding some PC qualification of this, you could always make sure, whenever you acknowledge it, also to add that Christians at various times and places have been violent. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 20:01, 17 November 2007 (EST)
  −
  −
Just a bit of information, and I could be completely wrong: Does the Islamic calendar begin when Muhammed's followers were exiled from Mecca and became a military force? [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:05, 21 February 2008 (EST)
  −
   
=No=
 
=No=
 
No way does mainstream Islam endorse violence.  Only the radical few (who we all hear about in the papers) take the sections of the Koran literally about attacking/killing infidels.  You don't see Indonesia (the most populous Islamic country) pumping out terrorists and constantly killing Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc. Those who believe that Islam promotes violence are sheltered in their learnings. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
 
No way does mainstream Islam endorse violence.  Only the radical few (who we all hear about in the papers) take the sections of the Koran literally about attacking/killing infidels.  You don't see Indonesia (the most populous Islamic country) pumping out terrorists and constantly killing Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc. Those who believe that Islam promotes violence are sheltered in their learnings. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
25

edits