No, Islam Isn’t Inherently Violent, And The Math Proves It!

[TankMan]

When you call someone a 'criminal', the proper context of the word imply the person is UNDER JURISDICTION of an authority. In a region where there are contestant authority figures, such as a civil war situation, and if the contest is severe enough that each side can only exercise physical authority in limited geographies, whatever law previously created or recently created are equally limited. History is filled with these situations, including new countries created like your Pakistan, where previous laws and the legal system no longer apply.

If half the country controlled by A have no laws against being left handed, but the half controlled by B does have such a law, then left handed people under B's jurisdiction would be legally 'criminals'.

This is about temporal laws, not whatever religious version that may or may not exist. Until you prove to me that Allah exist, I will uphold temporal laws as supremacy.

So the debate was purely based on semantics - thus it is irrelevant. Everyone knows and understands what the word 'criminal' was intended to imply.

So what ? I do not care -- until they finally act. I have to deal with the physical results from an action. Anything prior is purely academic.

If you do not care then why do you argue over it?
Knowing and understanding the problem is very important in 'dealing' with the results of an action and preventing actions from happening at all.

I do not care.

Then don't argue over it, it's that simple. Argue over what you care about and the response will be what you'd care about.

But that still does not take away from the core issue: That Islam is the foundation for those interpretations.

I can say the US constitution is the foundation for a brand of anarchism I want to start. It says, in section 2, that ''No Person shall be a Representative''. I will then say that democracy is unconstitutional and you need to burn down Congress quick because it's full of representatives.

I conveniently leave out the very next part that says: ''who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years...[etc]''

Does that make my ''interpretation'' of the US constitution valid? Obviously, it does not. Then why is Islam the foundation for those interpretations any more than the US constitution is the foundation for my hypothetical brand of anarchism?

If you change something, anything, it will be different. Islam is not at fault for people changing and twisting it.

If an interpretation is a 'misinterpretation', that is YOUR responsibility to sort it out, not ours to determine who is right and who is wrong.

I never disagreed with that. Why do you think I have been shouting about it for so long? We have also been up to stuff like protesting, holding seminars, making and distributing pamphlets, writing letters and generally just shouting at the top of our lungs, along with actively fighting them militarily and pushing for a crackdown against terrorist sympathizers, their funding and their hate speech.
A lot more needs to be done, sure, but we're not exactly sitting idle either. We shouldn't have to 'prove ourselves' like this but I feel it was needed here.

To you, Anjem Choudary is an anomaly. But to him and his kind, YOU are the anomaly. We do not care on the theology, sophistry, and any sort of mental gymnastics you engages in to show us who is the anomaly. Sort it out among yourselves. But if we have to deal with the consequences, then we will form our own perceptions of you.

Rest assured we are sorting it out. Slowly but surely.

No...You cannot dismiss this that easily. From what I am seeing so far, the non-Muslims are stupid but not you ?

When did I ever say anything about that? I intentionally chose the word 'people' to signify that this was a general statement and not referring to any specific group. Of course someone as biased as you would see it as ''Islamic supremacism''.

I, personally, am not stupid. I could be wrong in things but I always consider by viewpoint carefully. On the other hand, some of the stupidest people I've met and argued with are Muslim. But then, living in a Muslim majority society for most of my life, most of the people I've met are Muslim.

We are stupid because we cannot see YOUR viewpoint that people like Anjem Choudary is wrong

I never said any of that. Anjem Chaudhary's followers are stupid. Unless you follow him, you're not stupid and I never said anything that could imply it.

This argument is done for. No one takes it seriously. The Muslims have their ow countries and filled with oil wealth. They contribute and influence global affairs and they did it for their own interests, no different than any experienced power. They are courted by contestant governments under diametrically opposed ideologies. If you chose to squabble among yourselves over some tribal issues thousands of yrs old, that is your problems, or rather should be your problems. Whenever you cannot settle your differences among yourselves, you blame it on a convenient scapegoat -- colonialism. People are so tired of it that they automatically tuned you out, like turning the knob on a radio, from static to something worthwhile hearing.

You brought in the facile argument about the West being all good lovely people doing everything out of goodwill while evil Muslims destroyed it - of course you'd ''tune it out'' when that argument was challenged.

Believe what you want to.

If this member's ban is motivated by this post, then it shows sheer intolerance of Muslim towards criticism...

The fact that hundreds of such members post things like these (plenty on this very thread, unbanned) shows the contrary. Religious arguments are supposed to be banned in the first place.

Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly fine with criticism. What I despise is a false narrative. The same false narrative that has killed thousands of my people. The exact same narrative is peddled by ''criticisms'' like these ones. And I'm glad people post it, because pounding it gives me satisfaction and is a good pastime.

 

[gambit]

So the debate was purely based on semantics - thus it is irrelevant. Everyone knows and understands what the word 'criminal' was intended to imply.

It is not mere semantics. You do not like the word 'Islam' and 'Muslim' attached to them. Why not if these words are mere labels ? If the words 'Islam' and 'Muslim' are important enough for you to try to dismiss them from the conversation, then equally important is whether the Muslims who committed these atrocities are Muslims or criminals. You want to use the label 'criminals' because you want to isolate these Muslims from your religion.

If I tell you that as a motorcyclist, I have never broken the speed limit laws, would you believe me ? Of course not.

But here is the relevant point: If I broke the speed limit laws, it is not because of the laws existing, but because I just like to go fast.

The speed limit law does not say: You cannot go fast.

Rather, the speed limit laws say: You cannot go faster than a specified figure.

In a similar vein, if these Muslims burned a caged man to death, they did not do it because there was a Syrian law that says: You cannot burn a man to death.

These Muslims burned a man to death based upon arguments OTHER THAN legalism which involves your religion and its teachings. They did not care if there are any existing laws about burning a man to death. They only care if what they want to do conforms to the religion's teachings. If they have a religious figure stamp his approval on it, they will find that religious figure. Syrian laws be damned.

So no, it is not irrelevant semantics.

If you do not care then why do you argue over it?
Knowing and understanding the problem is very important in 'dealing' with the results of an action and preventing actions from happening at all.


Then don't argue over it, it's that simple. Argue over what you care about and the response will be what you'd care about.

Because I am tired of being preached by Muslims that A, B, and C are 'not Islamic', especially when it is clear to observers that the source of A, B, and C came from interpretations of Islam.

I can say the US constitution is the foundation for a brand of anarchism I want to start. It says, in section 2, that ''No Person shall be a Representative''. I will then say that democracy is unconstitutional and you need to burn down Congress quick because it's full of representatives.

I conveniently leave out the very next part that says: ''who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years...[etc]''

Does that make my ''interpretation'' of the US constitution valid? Obviously, it does not. Then why is Islam the foundation for those interpretations any more than the US constitution is the foundation for my hypothetical brand of anarchism?

If you change something, anything, it will be different. Islam is not at fault for people changing and twisting it.

Absolutely you can interpret the US Constitution anyway you see fit. The issue is not the validity of those interpretations but the SOURCE(S) of those interpretations.

Here is the definition of 'valid'...

- (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent

You cannot argue the US Constitution is a document for anarchism by way of the Communist Manifesto. You have to use -- what else -- the US Constitution.

Whether your argument is logical, factual, reasonable, and/or cogent is for the specific issues that are common to constitutional republics. But the SOURCE of your argument must be the US Constitution.

I never disagreed with that. Why do you think I have been shouting about it for so long? We have also been up to stuff like protesting, holding seminars, making and distributing pamphlets, writing letters and generally just shouting at the top of our lungs, along with actively fighting them militarily and pushing for a crackdown against terrorist sympathizers, their funding and their hate speech.
A lot more needs to be done, sure, but we're not exactly sitting idle either. We shouldn't have to 'prove ourselves' like this but I feel it was needed here.

Rest assured we are sorting it out. Slowly but surely.

Fine...But we wonder why did it have to get to this point ? Good God Almighty...Your fellow Muslims made a public spectacle of burning a caged man to death...And they praised your deity as he suffers to his death!!! It is not as if Islamic extremism is unknown in your community. Socially speaking, there are plenty of low level extremism as well, that silly Saudi imam who said the Earth does not rotate, for example. Afghanistan as is extreme as a country can get in this day and age in terms of modern development metrics.

When did I ever say anything about that? I intentionally chose the word 'people' to signify that this was a general statement and not referring to any specific group. Of course someone as biased as you would see it as ''Islamic supremacism''.

I, personally, am not stupid. I could be wrong in things but I always consider by viewpoint carefully. On the other hand, some of the stupidest people I've met and argued with are Muslim. But then, living in a Muslim majority society for most of my life, most of the people I've met are Muslim.

I understand what you meant but I disagree. I do not believe people in general are stupid.

I never said any of that. Anjem Chaudhary's followers are stupid. Unless you follow him, you're not stupid and I never said anything that could imply it.

Sorry...But as far as Anjem Choudary and his followers are concerned, YOU are stupid. And he is probably more versed in the Quran than you about it as well.

You brought in the facile argument about the West being all good lovely people doing everything out of goodwill while evil Muslims destroyed it - of course you'd ''tune it out'' when that argument was challenged.

And the argument that math can 'prove' Christians are more violent than Muslims is not facile ? Please...

 

[Black Widow]

The fact that hundreds of such members post things like these (plenty on this very thread, unbanned) shows the contrary. Religious arguments are supposed to be banned in the first place.

Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly fine with criticism. What I despise is a false narrative. The same false narrative that has killed thousands of my people. The exact same narrative is peddled by ''criticisms'' like these ones. And I'm glad people post it, because pounding it gives me satisfaction and is a good pastime.

This rule is fuzzy.. If it is banned then the thread starter must be banned first..

And more-over Any-thing and everything associated with Pakistan has religious overtone. If that is banned this forum will be dead..

@criticism: u may be OK with it, But the bitter fact is most of the Muslims are not OK with it.. Or Blashphemy law wouldn't have been existed. The Core of Islam was to insult other religion (By using bad word of there God, by destroying there temples) and if some one ask inconvenient question, kill him.

Tell me which sect in world allowed destruction of other's temple???? The Base of Islam is "never Question God or his Prohets.."

 

[TankMan]

This rule is fuzzy..

No doubt.

If it is banned then the thread starter must be banned first..

The rule is that the discussions themselves are banned, not the members that participate in them.

And more-over Any-thing and everything associated with Pakistan has religious overtone. If that is banned this forum will be dead..

Overtones aren't banned either. Purely religious discussions are. Like you said, the rule is fuzzy.

Or Blashphemy law wouldn't have been existed.

The blasphemy law is used more as a political tool than anything about avoiding criticism or whatever - if it was about criticism, they'd have a law like Indonesia's: anyone insulting any religion has a penalty, ranging from fines to a maximum of five years in prison.
I support the idea of that kind of law.

The Core of Islam was to insult other religion(By using bad word of there God, by destroying there temples)

What a load of Bull. How can Islam contradict it's own ''core''?

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)''
More detailed argument: The Tolerance of the Prophet towards Other Religions (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

The core of Islam is belief in one God, the Messenger and the Day of Judgement. Nothing else.

People adding whatever they please into this core is what causes problems. And here you are, doing that very thing. A word of advice, don't spread wrong opinions about things you don't know about. Doesn't help anyone.

Tell me which sect in world allowed destruction of other's temple?

Not Islam for sure. It is explicitly forbidden to destroy temples/places of worship or hurt monks/worshippers in Islam.

The Base of Islam is "never Question God or his Prohets.."

What's wrong with that? Isn't that the base of every religion? What's the point of having a religion if you are to question it?

 

[shuntmaster]

Hmmmmm you living in a country whose most professed religion is Islam (Malaysia) with these prejudices tells me otherwise of what you have tried to prove here.

Islam is not the most professed religion of Australia. .

 

[I.R.A]

Islam is not the most professed religion of Australia. .

Malaysia dear.

 

[shuntmaster]

Malaysia dear.

I don't live in malaysia anymore

 

[I.R.A]

I don't live in malaysia anymore

Okay

 

[shuntmaster]

Okay

How does my location matter? Location has no bearing on my opinions or on established facts.

 

[I.R.A]

How does my location matter? Location has no bearing on my opinions or on established facts.

Then how does that matter in case of any Muslim? Two Muslims can have a hell lot of different opinion and a resulting action, why label Islam for individual opinion or action of its followers then?

 

[gambit]

The blasphemy law is used more as a political tool than anything about avoiding criticism or whatever - if it was about criticism, they'd have a law like Indonesia's: anyone insulting any religion has a penalty, ranging from fines to a maximum of five years in prison.
I support the idea of that kind of law.

And there are documented cases where minorities were prosecuted under Indonesia's supposedly 'neutral' blasphemy laws.

What's the point of having a religion if you are to question it?

Actually, you made an excellent point.

What is 2 + 2 ? Four. And there are no possible alternative to that solution.

Which remind me of a joke about human relationships where 1 + 1 = 3. Get it ?

Anyway...Are there alternatives to the law of gravity ? No. The point here is that when something is so undeniably proven to be true, it is not merely pointless to question that <something>, it is actually impossible to do so. By that I mean you cannot question the law of gravity, of course you can question the law of gravity as loud as you can, but when we 'question' an idea and/or a method of doing something, it mean there is a burden to provide an alternative or at least prove the current idea somehow inadequate. So far, no one have successfully defied the law of gravity or prove 2 + 2 = Not-4.

Which lead back to your question and the issue of faith. When I turn on a light switch, I have absolute faith that the light bulb will illuminate the room. If the light bulb does not function as expected, even if I am not versed in the technical issues of electrical systems designs like an EE and that I have a degree in 18th century Mongolian bead art, I am versed enough in the concept of electricity that when the light bulb did not illuminate the room, I will not suspect magic was the cause of the failure to function. I will suspect a fuse or even a component inside the light bulb -- filament -- is the cause. If electricity is classified as a religion, the prophet Thomas Edison or prophet Nikola Tesla would be non-disputable. You can challenge the prophets Edison or Tesla, but if you chose to do so, you must show an alternative method that will power the light bulb.

Scientific faith is faith grounded in repeated challenges to conventional wisdom and equally repeatedly defeated not by suppressing those challenges but in ALLOWING those challenges to go forward.

Religious faith is faith founded on charisma, rhetoric, fear, and doubts.

If what Yusif Ali said that 'Truth stands out clear from Error ' is to be taken seriously, then the only way for the truth to be proven non-disputably is to allow challenges to that truth to go forward, not suppressed.

That is why there is no need for electricity to become a religion but Islam must.

 

[KingMamba]

@TankMan @Akheilos There was reason why Quid-e-Azam left the Congress after two decades of association and said "Hindus are incorrigible". You can type pages after pages, and erect a mountain of arguments but it wont change the stance of certain posters here. They are not here to get convinced or learn, but sling mud on Islam and prove that the Muslims are worst than animals. I wish if Muslims were indeed animals, for if they were, not a single of their being had left alive during the 900 years of Muslims rule in India. They remained alive to spew poison on Islam is in itself a testament and a proof of Muslim's tolerance towards the non-Muslims, and not any non-Muslims but those who were defeated and on the mercy of the ruling Muslims.

I can only imagine the level of restraint the conquering Muslims showered upon their Hindu subjects. Especially if the Hindus of yesterday were as annoying, venomous, and pompous as the Hindus of today.

I recognize that religious discussions are banned, and you are right about that, but over here religion is both directly influenced by and actively influencing politics and defense matters, so It is not completely irrelevant.

Secondly, it is important to counter the various and dangerous narratives being spread around. If this thread is closed, at the very least all the arguments should remain visible for anyone else who stumbles upon it so that they are not misled into something harmful by certain people's less than wise arguments.

I try my best to reach conclusions, but there will be disagreements in every topic doesn't matter what we try to do.

What Islam says is no longer relevant because the terrorists do not and will not agree with what the majority believes Islam says. For them Islam is all about expanding whatever way possible and putting to the sword all those who disagree. That is their Islam, now what the rest of us Muslims must decide is whether we can allow such people to not only stick around but flourish. I don't think we should or even can as the very essence of our faith is at stake, so I say we feed to them the sword they so covet.

 

[TankMan]

And there are documented cases where minorities were prosecuted under Indonesia's supposedly 'neutral' blasphemy laws.

Never said it was perfect. No law is. At least they weren't killed, and any 'persecution' would be limited to a small sentence. There are 'documented cases' of persecution in every legal system, doesn't make it entirely wrong.

Actually, you made an excellent point.

What is 2 + 2 ? Four. And there are no possible alternative to that solution.

Which remind me of a joke about human relationships where 1 + 1 = 3. Get it ?

Anyway...Are there alternatives to the law of gravity ? No. The point here is that when something is so undeniably proven to be true, it is not merely pointless to question that <something>, it is actually impossible to do so. By that I mean you cannot question the law of gravity, of course you can question the law of gravity as loud as you can, but when we 'question' an idea and/or a method of doing something, it mean there is a burden to provide an alternative or at least prove the current idea somehow inadequate. So far, no one have successfully defied the law of gravity or prove 2 + 2 = Not-4.

Which lead back to your question and the issue of faith. When I turn on a light switch, I have absolute faith that the light bulb will illuminate the room. If the light bulb does not function as expected, even if I am not versed in the technical issues of electrical systems designs like an EE and that I have a degree in 18th century Mongolian bead art, I am versed enough in the concept of electricity that when the light bulb did not illuminate the room, I will not suspect magic was the cause of the failure to function. I will suspect a fuse or even a component inside the light bulb -- filament -- is the cause. If electricity is classified as a religion, the prophet Thomas Edison or prophet Nikola Tesla would be non-disputable. You can challenge the prophets Edison or Tesla, but if you chose to do so, you must show an alternative method that will power the light bulb.

Scientific faith is faith grounded in repeated challenges to conventional wisdom and equally repeatedly defeated not by suppressing those challenges but in ALLOWING those challenges to go forward.

I get the joke, funny enough
But I fail to see how any of this is relevant to anything here. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but the point you are making is irrelevant because your entire view is based on your position and views against religion.

Religious faith is faith founded on charisma, rhetoric, fear, and doubts.

That is what you believe, that is how you view it.

For many others, religion is founded on divine scripture and clear proof - it is good, the answer to many things, calming - a generally positive force. Those people are as firm in it as you are in 2+2 equaling 4.

If what Yusif Ali said that 'Truth stands out clear from Error ' is to be taken seriously, then the only way for the truth to be proven non-disputably is to allow challenges to that truth to go forward, not suppressed.

I have no problem with any challenges going forward, but I will believe in my religion regardless of how much it is challenged - unless there is any serious evidence disproving the existence of God, which I highly doubt will ever happen.
Like you said:

but when we 'question' an idea and/or a method of doing something, it mean there is a burden to provide an alternative or at least prove the current idea somehow inadequate

And no, don't tell me I don't have any proof of his existence - it's already proven through historical record of his Prophets , miracles (signs or whatever you want to call them) and religious texts.

Anyways, nice discussion but I wish to end it here.

 

[gambit]

Never said it was perfect. No law is. At least they weren't killed, and any 'persecution' would be limited to a small sentence. There are 'documented cases' of persecution in every legal system, doesn't make it entirely wrong.

Then how about doing away with blasphemy laws completely ? That way, no one would get hurt by misuse and abuse of those laws ?

I think you like those blasphemy laws just because you enjoy seeing religious minorities persecuted, even if just on a small scale.

For many others, religion is founded on divine scripture and clear proof - it is good, the answer to many things, calming - a generally positive force. Those people are as firm in it as you are in 2+2 equaling 4.

What 'proof' ? Any scribbling can be called 'divine'. The problem is proving how they are 'divine' in the first place.

Yes, people can believe that the Earth is 6,000 yrs old as firmly as they believe that 2 + 2 =4, but believing does not automatically make it as undisputable as 2 + 2 = 4. You can believe as hard as you can that gravity is imaginary, or that you can live on air alone...

Breatharian Institute Of America

A Breatharian is a person who can, under the proper conditions, live with or without eating physical food.

...But that does not mean gravity does not exist or that you do not need to eat to live.

I have no problem with any challenges going forward, but I will believe in my religion regardless of how much it is challenged - unless there is any serious evidence disproving the existence of God, which I highly doubt will ever happen.

So you expect us to disprove your Allah ?

Since Christianity predated Islam, how about you prove that Jesus is NOT the Son of God, as Jesus claimed He was? After all, you want Muhammad to replace Jesus, right ? So in order to do that, you must show undisputable proof that Jesus was NOT the Son of God as he claimed he was. Remember, I am going by YOUR reasoning.

And no, don't tell me I don't have any proof of his existence - it's already proven through historical record of his Prophets , miracles (signs or whatever you want to call them) and religious texts.

Nonsense. You have literally NOTHING to prove the existence of Allah.

Anyways, nice discussion but I wish to end it here.

Of course you would since the debate have turned against you.