Good "Islam = Religion of Peace" Debate

[LuisDantas]

It was a case of freedom of belief vs genocide. To protect their rights they had no choice but to defend themselves. No matter where the Muslims went, the Meccans pursued them with intent of genocide and complete extermination of every man, woman and child.

How convenient an interpretation.

Interestingly, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the like make remarkably similar claims to attempt to justify their violence.

So much for any claims of being a religion of peace. Islam emcourages peace, but in practice only if it does not get in the way of your pride and fear.

 

[LuisDantas]

Unless it doesn't.
All Abrahamic religions claim this. They are also consistently proven wrong. Once they get enough power they start the oppression, claiming it is for the good of others.
This is not a new concept.
Tom

Unfortunately, that is indeed the truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

But our marriage laws are between a man and a woman only.

There is no one we cannot learn from.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

 

[loverofhumanity]

How convenient an interpretation.

Interestingly, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the like make remarkably similar claims to attempt to justify their violence.

So much for any claims of being a religion of peace. Islam emcourages peace, but in practice only if it does not get in the way of your pride and fear.

That's the history of Islam in the time of Muhammad. The circumstances 1400 years ago were one of genocide being committed against Muhammad and His followers.

In the case of these terrorist groups it's the other way round. They are the perpetrators of genocide. No one has tried to wipe them out because they believe in one God as was the case in the days of Muhammad.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How do you reconcile these two statements?

We can learn from everyone regardless of their race, religion or no religion, class, culture, nationality or sexual preferences.

There's good in all people.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's the history of Islam in the time of Muhammad. The circumstances 1400 years ago were one of genocide being committed against Muhammad and His followers.

That is certainly the narrative that came to us through Islamic sources.

How true that is, though? Everyone is the hero of his or her own narrative, after all. Even today most Americans seem to seriously believe that the atomic bombings of WW2 somehow saved lives.

In the case of these terrorist groups it's the other way round. They are the perpetrators of genocide. No one has tried to wipe them out because they believe in one God as was the case in the days of Muhammad.

That is... not likely to be at all true.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is certainly the narrative that came to us through Islamic sources.

How true that is, though? Everyone is the hero of his or her own narrative, after all. Even today most Americans seem to seriously believe that the atomic bombings of WW2 somehow saved lives.



That is... not likely to be at all true.

I personally see Hiroshima and Nagasaki, regardless of there being a war, as a crime against humanity.

As to whether the story about the early Days of Muhammad is correct we each have to decide that for ourselves based on our sources as neither of us was there 1400 years ago.

My sources confirm to me it was true. Not Muslim sources. I believe my sources are factual and trustworthy. But it comes down to trust in our sources as we weren't there.

 

[LuisDantas]

I personally see Hiroshima and Nagasaki, regardless of there being a war, as a crime against humanity.

As to whether the story about the early Days of Muhammad is correct we each have to decide that for ourselves based on our sources as neither of us was there 1400 years ago.

My sources confirm to me it was true. Not Muslim sources. I believe my sources are factual and trustworthy. But it comes down to trust in our sources as we weren't there.

Never mind what happened 1400 years ago. I can't believe you seriously think the terrorists don't see themselves as doing God's work.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Never mind what happened 1400 years ago. I can't believe you seriously think the terrorists don't see themselves as doing God's work.

I never said that. The terrorists of course believe they are divinely guided and are reclaiming the Caliphate. That's what they believe among other things. I believe they are criminals not good Muslims at all.

Where did you glean that from?

 

[LuisDantas]

From post #64.

 

[loverofhumanity]

From post #64.

I meant they are not victims being persecuted, but war criminals.

They are not being persecuted.

Muhammad was persecuted for teaching one God.

Terrorists are not victims. Nobody is oppressing them. They are perpetrators killing innocent people.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

 

[loverofhumanity]

From post #64.

Thanks for picking me up Luis if you notice something that seems wrong I've posted. Much appreciated.

 

[YmirGF]

The Baha'i teaching of the oneness of humanity is for everyone.

But our marriage laws are between a man and a woman only.

And to those of us who are completely unimpressed with the Baha'i teaching of the oneness of humanity? Are we included too or do our opinions matter in the slightest?

 

[YmirGF]

Muhammad was persecuted for teaching one God.
.

No, that is simply not true. You conveniently ignore how long the Meccans tolerated his weirdness. He lived with then for 10 years after he anointed himself a prophet and it was only after he began to attract followers that the Meccans became uneasy with his relentless preaching. You have to remember he was telling them, non-stop, for about a decade, that paganism was a great sin and that its followers were in for quite some fun in the Hellfire which he described in withering detail to anyone who would listen. His persecution was richly deserved.

 

[LuisDantas]

I must agree. It is at the very least premature to simply take Muhammad's account with no reservations whatsoever.

But even more significant is that once that precedent for Islamic violence was established by Muhammad himself, there was no way to truly counter it.

Islam is like every other doctrine: it wants peace... if it is not inconvenient to pursue it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

As to whether the story about the early Days of Muhammad is correct we each have to decide that for ourselves based on our sources as neither of us was there 1400 years ago.

My sources confirm to me it was true. Not Muslim sources. I believe my sources are factual and trustworthy. But it comes down to trust in our sources as we weren't there.

What are these other sources since Muslim sources are the only ones (at least that I'm aware of) that have survived?

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, that is simply not true. You conveniently ignore how long the Meccans tolerated his weirdness. He lived with then for 10 years after he anointed himself a prophet and it was only after he began to attract followers that the Meccans became uneasy with his relentless preaching. You have to remember he was telling them, non-stop, for about a decade, that paganism was a great sin and that its followers were in for quite some fun in the Hellfire which he described in withering detail to anyone who would listen. His persecution was richly deserved.

What is your source of this information as we know none of us were there to verify it so one either listens to the Muslims version or those who believe Islam is false?

My source is Baha'u'llah Whom I recognise as the Promised One foretold in all the Holy Books.

Now if He is that Holy One then His version is right. People can accept whichever version suits their bias but the real truth can only be verified by another Messenger of God Who has infallible knowledge on the matter.

If people don't believe in a God Who sends Prophets with infallible knowledge then you cannot claim your version of 1400 years ago to be absolutely correct as there is no way for you to or anyone to verify it and historians only give their version not necessarily the truth or accurate account so how can you be so sure when you weren't an eye witness and I know many famous western writers throughout the centuries have openly been biased against Muhammad and written derogatory things which from my source are completely false

As I said, for me I can be sure because I rest my case on Baha'u'llah.

I'll post some things He said about Muhammad later.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What are these other sources since Muslim sources are the only ones (at least that I'm aware of) that have survived?

The Writings of Baha'u'llah are my source. His Words we believe, are the Word of God and are infallible and authoritative.

If He is a true Messenger of God His version is the only 100% accurate one on the planet.

His credentials are not that easy to dismissed if one is fair minded.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, that is simply not true. You conveniently ignore how long the Meccans tolerated his weirdness. He lived with then for 10 years after he anointed himself a prophet and it was only after he began to attract followers that the Meccans became uneasy with his relentless preaching. You have to remember he was telling them, non-stop, for about a decade, that paganism was a great sin and that its followers were in for quite some fun in the Hellfire which he described in withering detail to anyone who would listen. His persecution was richly deserved.

Today most people believe freedom of worship is a fundamental human right. So Muhammad and His followers had the right to believe what they wished without being persecuted.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And to those of us who are completely unimpressed with the Baha'i teaching of the oneness of humanity? Are we included too or do our opinions matter in the slightest?

Yes you are our fellow human beings why shouldn't you be included? We are no better than you. We are imperfect and have much to learn from others.

Of course your opinions matter. Why not? We are just ordinary people and not superior in the least to anyone believer or not.

You may be much better than us. There is good in all.