I ask posters to give their honest opinion. Additionally I'm not Muslim, so I will ask the poster to imagine hearing the statement of "Islam is a Religion of Peace" from a Muslim in the live world as opposed to on this internet forum.

I want to let the reader know where I am coming from wrt my statement of "Islam is a Religion of peace"

The following is from a transcript of a Oxford Union debate about Islam being a religion of peace

"Ladies and gentleman, let me just say this to you, think about what the opposite of the motion is, if you vote tonight opposition’s motion (Is Islam a religion of peace?), Islam isn't the religion of peace,it is religion of war, of violence, of terror, of aggression but the people who follow Islam me, my wife, my retired parents, my six-year-old child but one point eight million of your fellow British residents and citizens of one point two billion people across the world, your fellow human beings, are all followers, promoters, believers in the religion of violence? Do you really think that"



this will be my only post itt, as I did ask one of the Mods if the discussion of this thread could be moved to the "How to Prevent Islamphobia" thread.

Do you claim you are not free from democratic conditioning in this question?

None of the above. Every religion is what the individuals who adhere to that religion make it. The "true essence" of any religion can be debated for centuries with little progress.

I agree with Sommerset, Islam means different things to different people. Do you mean the traditional teachings of the Quran?

"Ladies and gentleman, let me just say this to you, think about what the opposite of the motion is, if you vote tonight opposition’s motion (Is Islam a religion of peace?), Islamism isnt the religion of peace,it is religion of war, of violence, of terror, of aggression but the people who follow Islam me, my wife, my retired parents, my six-year-old child but one point eight million of your fellow British residents and citizens of one point two billion people across the world, your fellow human beings, are all followers, promoters, believers in the religion of violence? Do you really think that"


It should say Islam here

+1

None of them are religions of peace. If history teaches us anything it's that faiths are always ready to kill the unbeliever at some point.

God demands sacrifices, his hands are bloody with them.

The negation of "islam is a religion of peace" is "islam is not a religion of peace"...not "islam is a religion of violence" - for much the same reason that the negation of "snow is white" is "snow is not white" rather than "snow is black". But given your posts elsewhere I can see why you'd endorse that sort of disingenuousness and/or sloppy thinking.

Its similar to "do guns kill or do humans kill while using guns". The bottom line is that religion doesnt kill...humans using religion as an excuse kill. Now if religions didnt exist...would we stop killing eachother or would we just find another stupid excuse to kill? Like one of my teachers used to say "stupid is the one who cant come up with an excuse". And in rare cases religion might give morals to a person who otherwise might lack them. Peace is made on peaceful morals and not on religion. Religion can be used to preach good morals and it can be used to justify hate. However when I think of "peaceful religion" I tend to think of religions that tolerate other religions without saying "our religion is the only true one and all others are wrong" (think buddism for example). I think tolerating other peoples beliefs is something that religions like islam and christianity lack making them potentially dangerous which is a good argument against calling those religions a "religion of peace".

I like to believe in reincarnation so my example of buddism as a good religion might not be completely unbiased. It has a nice scare factor "you cant afford to start a war/ignore world problems as you might live those horrors in your next life" while it doesnt have the "convert or go to hell" factor ( if reincarnation exists you will be reincarnated anyway whether you believed in it or not).

^ Except that it isn't all that similar to whether guns kill. Guns don't constitute a body of dogma. Guns don't, through their very embodiment as well as those literally in their employ, teach people to believe certain beliefs and to behave in certain ways. Guns are a tool employed by people who desire certain ends, while religions — all of them — are codified desires that, when they succeed, employ people as tools to achieve their ends. Guns are tangible things, while religions are thoughts... and tangible things cannot be evil while thoughts are the only things that truly can.

Guns are a means of killing people, employed by those who want to do it. Religions are often the reason they want to do it.

I think that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion in the traditional sense. The Buddha is not a deity and there is no worship per se.

My only issue with the practice of Buddhism is that dirt poor communities in Cambodia, for example, have enough resources to build seemingly endless statues of the Buddha whilst living in abject poverty. It's strange.

Yes, think of the statement as "Islam is a Religion of Peace" as outlined in the Quran


As a side note wrt the Quran, there is only one Arabic version of the Quran, must non Muslim historians concur the traditional teachings and words of the Quran never changed from the time of M's revaluation. Language translations may slightly differ but as we see a multitude of holy books in Christianity, we see only one in Islam.

As for Christianity, I don't prefer the King James version of the Bible, the Old/New testament is where its at.

My point (by badly chosen analogue, I admit) was that we often view the surface when deeming things to be "good" and "bad" while we should go a bit deeper than that. Religion itself doesnt kill it's people who do and they are going to find millions of excuses to do so. Biology isnt bad, yet nazis used it to justify their actions, altruism is noble and yet communism killed even more people than nazis. Similarly the things most religions teach are good. It just takes someone to put a twist on them in order to make them bad. I also doubt that religion is the reason but rather an excuse for the one pulling the strings.



To be honest my knowledge of Buddhism is very basic so I dont know their worship traditions (or the lack of them). However it is organized belief in "after death" so it fits the bill for me. And while talking about bills, I usually go with "not my money, not my business". Usually when I see a person who has less money than me buy something I cant afford I call it "the miracle of priorities" and if the object makes them happier than spending the next week eating high-quality food then who am I to judge? It's not like Im going on a instant noodle diet with them.

I don't agree to the format of the question, as it is slanted towards the religious aspect and not the institutional aspect of Islam. Which is a mistake in itself.

But to answer the question: No it is not, and neither are the two other main Abrahamic religions Judaism and Christianity. As a religion these three all have holy works that glorify and justify killing, that glorify and justify oppression and that glorify and justify blindly following orders.

Some would then point out that this is not so in a case-to-case basis on the individual level. But that's fine, I have no problems talking in aggregates.

As proof of the institutional willingness to use their holy works to this effect I submit that members of these three religions have been warring on and off over control of their holy cities for more than a thousand years.

I think that 'Islam is a Religion of Peace' is simply too broad a statement to have any real meaning.

Can anything be called peaceful if by it's very existence, it has a negative impact on peace (as defined: 'a state or period in which there is no war or a war has ended')? We might consider Ghandi a man of peace, but by his actions he created strife and turmoil. Can he really be called peaceful? Can Islam?

Even longer than that, the christian conflict with Islam began in the 7th century. Religions have been a cause of a failure to achieve peace as long as they've existed. We have a tendency to in group/out group and I wonder if we'll ever lose it.

Firstly thank you to all participating voters, its not often we have a poll like this in a poker forum, although it is rgt.

Interesting poll so far IMO ,out of 24 votes we have 3 people whom agree/strongly agree that "Islam is a religion of peace" In addition 4 neither agree nor disagree,

So 7/24 is far more then I expected to at least not vote strongly disagree/disagree.

I wonder if a new poll thread titled "Buddhism is a Religion of peace" was created , what the stats would say.

Here is The Onion's take on it, which I think is rather good...

No one murdered because of this image

do you think Christianity is a religion of peace?

I think I understand your point... and I did, and still do, disagree with it. Religion does kill people, because religion (some of them) is a set of beliefs that, when accepted, holds that some killing is good. That is entirely unlike the gun analogy, and biology in the hands of the nazis. The former is, as I explained, merely a tool, while the latter is an excuse for what the people in question wanted to do anyway. But religion, by contrast, may be (and is) used by some as an excuse but it is itself the cause of many, many deaths. Guns don't want people to die; biology doesn't want people to die; many religions do, absolutely, want some people to die.

If a Muslim accepts all the tenets of his religion — and many Muslims do — then he believes that under appropriate circumstances, jihad is justified and in fact required. It is the teachings of the religion — in other words, the religion itself — that causes the devotee to be inclined, in certain cases, to blow people up.

If a Jew accepts all the tenets of his religion — and many Jews do — then he believes that under appropriate circumstances, war in defense of the right of the Jews to occupy their supposedly divinely given homeland is justified and in fact required. It is the teachings of the religion — in other words, the religion itself — that has caused some wars.

It's more complicated with Christianity because of the multiplicity of variations on the teachings, but for many mainstream Christians it's the same: The teachings of the religion (as generally accepted by Christians) justify and even compel war in some cases. The Christian bible has caused numerous wars, dating back to the First Crusade. That's right, caused — not just been an excuse for.

None of these three is a "religion of peace", because each is a belief system whose tenets include that war is, sometimes, good. And again, that's different from any analogy you can draw to anything that is not a belief or a collection thereof. To return to the OP's question, Islam is, among other things, the belief that killing infidels in jihad is good. It's not just associated with that belief, it is that belief (plus others).

Firstly atakdog I mean this in the most respectful way, I think here you are being unfair to Islam. In other threads I explain how(historic facts) Muslims and Jews have worked together throughout history including WW2 and the Spanish Inquisition of 1492.

So in your view, you think a Muslim whom "accepts all the tenets of his religion wants to wage Jihad", Jihad against whom? In traditional times of Abraham/Jesus/M when many humans were religious. And the foundations of Islam, the teachings of Muhammad(peace be upon him) taught its Muslim followers to live in peace with their Jewish and Christian counterparts.

See the The Achtiname of Muhammad where he decreed that Christians are to be treated with respect and dignity. Also see how Muslims protected Jews during WW2 and the Spanish Inquisition "based on their Islamic beliefs". In these cases, Islam saves the lives of those whom are non Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achtiname_of_Muhammad


Your thoughts on the Achtiname of M?

Also I have a feeling I could find scholars whom disagree with your stance on Judaism and its tenants. Still you make good arguments,

I would say no. Christianity is controversial by nature so I wouldn't call it a religion of peace. This is where I think you are being naive regarding Islam. Just because many Muslims lead peaceful lives it does not follow that Islam is a religion of peace. There is no need to sugar coat reality.

Islam is a religion of hate, violence, war, persecution, cruelty, discrimination, greed and power.

It systematically brainwashes the uneducated, the gullible, the mentally enfeebled and, worst of all, the young and impressionable, as a way of subjugating the masses and exercising a stifling control over individual freedom.

In other words, it's just like almost all the other major religions

Interesting viewpoint, Which ones (religion) are not a religion of as you say "hate, violence, war, persecution, cruelty, discrimination, greed and power" ?