How Warlike Is Islam? (followers, church, religious leader, catholic, Vatican)

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Mujahid Mohammed

What do you mean indirect. It is direct because it is the original and we have the interpretation. let me give you an example We have what we call the tafsir which is the explanation of the Quran according to what happened at the time. The companions know why the verse was revealed and they wrote it down. The Messenger pbu sat with some of the Companions [ali ibn abi talib, ibn abbas, ibn masud,obaid bin kab]and explained to them what every ayat meant and some of the one they did know. We have their documentation[very old]. Abu Hurairah sat with the Messenger he has narrated the most hadith. Then were two of other companions and his wife. Ours is direct because we still have the original. And we have the original interpretations of the one who gave it to us. What other religions have the original.

Indirect would be God talking to a prophet and the prophet writing it down.
Direct would be God talking to you.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Victor

I agree. But I don't look to applications or actions, but rather official teachings. If Islam's official teachings are that of violence, then I object it on those grounds. I refuse to even include applications and actions.

I agree, Victor. A religion's teachings are like a science in the sense that you can't blame the science for the uses it is put to. Some people will use biology to create medicines, others will use it to create biological weapons. Biology itself is no more at fault than a religion is at fault for how people put it to use.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I agree, Victor. A religion's teachings are like a science in the sense that you can't blame the science for the uses it is put to. Some people will use biology to create medicines, others will use it to create biological weapons. Biology itself is no more at fault than a religion is at fault for how people put it to use.

Ummm, doesn't this support my point? You ask whether Islam is warlike; the answer is that it depends upon what people do with it. Some people use scripture/religious teachings to promote peace and harmony, others use it to judge and divide, or conquer.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Ummm, doesn't this support my point? You ask whether Islam is warlike; the answer is that it depends upon what people do with it. Some people use scripture/religious teachings to promote peace and harmony, others use it to judge and divide, or conquer.

It does, my only objection was that history does matter if it pertains to official teaching.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I would be interested in any differences you see between the two. Does that help?

Not really.

Given the Qu'ran says things like "Let there be no compulsion in religion" and the habits in *some* Muslim areas to compel people, there can often be a vast difference between what Muhammad taught and what happens in real life.

If you want more differences than the one really obvious example, that's gonna be a pretty long subject, so would probably need a thread of its own.

Incidentally, the same could be said of comparing oh, what the Gospels teach, and what has happened historically in practice in Christendom.

Any religion of any age seems to have this difficulty.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Booko

Not really.

Given the Qu'ran says things like "Let there be no compulsion in religion" and the habits in *some* Muslim areas to compel people, there can often be a vast difference between what Muhammad taught and what happens in real life.

If you want more differences than the one really obvious example, that's gonna be a pretty long subject, so would probably need a thread of its own.

Incidentally, the same could be said of comparing oh, what the Gospels teach, and what has happened historically in practice in Christendom.

Any religion of any age seems to have this difficulty.

That why I try to capture official teaching in conjuction with history. Actions will always fall short in any group.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Victor

That why I try to capture official teaching in conjuction with history. Actions will always fall short in any group.

Which is something I've always appreciated in your posts.

There is a difficulty with Islam in this regard in that they tend to have less of a central authority (in theory, there is no clergy), what authority there is is fractured, and unlike the RCC or the Orthodox or in Judaism, official teachings are not readily available in English.

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Originally Posted by Victor

Indirect would be God talking to a prophet and the prophet writing it down.
Direct would be God talking to you.

Then all the semitic religions except christianity would be that way. So the answer is who has preserved in its the original word of God.