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)

No

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.

The Myth:

Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense - and when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.

The Truth:

Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his most faithful followers and even his own family turned on each other almost immediately. There were four Caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years, each of which was a trusted companion of his. Three of these four were murdered. The third Caliph was murdered by the son of the first. The fourth Caliph was murdered by the fifth, who left a 100-year dynasty that was ended in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle.

Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated by Muslim rivals. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam expanded.

Muslim apologists who like to say that is impossible for today's terrorists to be Muslim when they kill fellow Muslims would have a very tough time explaining the war between Fatima and Aisha to a knowledgeable audience. Muhammad's favorite daughter and his favorite wife were both explicitly held up by him as model Muslim women before they engaged in violent battle following his death. Which one was the prophet of God so horribly wrong about?

Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.

Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death - pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.

By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by sword, from Syria to Spain, and across North Africa.

Millions of Christians were enslaved by Muslims, and tens of millions of Africans. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years, until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory). To this day, the Muslim world has never apologized for the victims of Jihad and slavery.

There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of religion as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Qur’an most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit.

The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith. In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory). The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Qur'anic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.

By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known.

And loads of other stuff ... so-called toleration, entirely rubbish, read Bat Ye-or.