• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The curious case of Islam

ronki23

ronki23

Well-Known Member
Islam is from the same family as Judaism and Christianity: they have Adam & Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus but the adherents of Islam tend to be Arab, Sub Saharan, Pathan, Baloch, Tajikistan, Persian and Turkic. Islam requires you to fast during Ramadan and encourages Sunnis to pray 5x a day.

Jews and Christians tend to live in harmony in the USA and Eastern Europe. Although they were driven out of Western Europe by the Nazis they have started to return.

Why are Muslims perceived to be more violent than the other world religions ? For example, the partition of India and Kashmir were violent events ? Even the vast majority of Muslims hate Israel and the Jews because they feel the Palestinians were robbed of their land.

Why is Islam so different from Judaism and Christianity despite the fact they are from the same family and even race (Semites and Sub Saharan African) ?
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
ronki23 said:
Why are Muslims perceived to be more violent than the other world religions ?
Click to expand...

They key word in your question is "perceived". I found a piece that goes into detail about religion and violence and includes arguments about what is a religion, why the perception exists, what purpose the perception serves etc. Does Religion Cause Violence? | Harvard Divinity Bulletin

What Is the Argument For?

If the conventional wisdom that religion causes violence is so incoherent, why is it so prevalent? I believe it is because we in the West find it useful. In domestic politics, it serves to silence representatives of certain kinds of faiths in the public sphere. The story is told repeatedly that the liberal state has learned to tame the dangerous divisiveness of contending religious beliefs by reducing them to essentially private affairs. In foreign policy, the conventional wisdom helps reinforce and justify Western attitudes and policies toward the non-Western world, especially Muslims, whose primary point of difference with the West is their stubborn refusal to tame religious passions in the public sphere. “We in the West long ago learned the sobering lessons of religious warfare and have moved toward secularization. The liberal nation-state is essentially a peacemaker. Now we only seek to share the blessings of peace with the Muslim world. Regrettably, because of their stubborn fanaticism, it is sometimes necessary to bomb them into liberal democracy.” In other words, the myth of religious violence establishes a reassuring dichotomy between their violence—which is absolutist, divisive, and irrational—and our violence—which is modest, unitive, and rational.
...
The myth of religious violence marks the “clash of civilizations” worldview that attributes Muslims’ animosity toward the West to their inability to learn the lessons of history and remove the baneful influence of religion from politics.
 
ronki23

ronki23

Well-Known Member
sun rise said:
They key word in your question is "perceived". I found a piece that goes into detail about religion and violence and includes arguments about what is a religion, why the perception exists, what purpose the perception serves etc. Does Religion Cause Violence? | Harvard Divinity Bulletin

What Is the Argument For?

If the conventional wisdom that religion causes violence is so incoherent, why is it so prevalent? I believe it is because we in the West find it useful. In domestic politics, it serves to silence representatives of certain kinds of faiths in the public sphere. The story is told repeatedly that the liberal state has learned to tame the dangerous divisiveness of contending religious beliefs by reducing them to essentially private affairs. In foreign policy, the conventional wisdom helps reinforce and justify Western attitudes and policies toward the non-Western world, especially Muslims, whose primary point of difference with the West is their stubborn refusal to tame religious passions in the public sphere. “We in the West long ago learned the sobering lessons of religious warfare and have moved toward secularization. The liberal nation-state is essentially a peacemaker. Now we only seek to share the blessings of peace with the Muslim world. Regrettably, because of their stubborn fanaticism, it is sometimes necessary to bomb them into liberal democracy.” In other words, the myth of religious violence establishes a reassuring dichotomy between their violence—which is absolutist, divisive, and irrational—and our violence—which is modest, unitive, and rational.
...
The myth of religious violence marks the “clash of civilizations” worldview that attributes Muslims’ animosity toward the West to their inability to learn the lessons of history and remove the baneful influence of religion from politics.
Click to expand...

Secret Chief said:
Hard to say where this perception comes from.

- Salman Rushdie: Author believed fatwa was old and life relatively normal
Click to expand...

Vee said:
Because they are constantly involved in violent acts?
Click to expand...

sun rise said:
They key word in your question is "perceived". I found a piece that goes into detail about religion and violence and includes arguments about what is a religion, why the perception exists, what purpose the perception serves etc. Does Religion Cause Violence? | Harvard Divinity Bulletin

What Is the Argument For?

If the conventional wisdom that religion causes violence is so incoherent, why is it so prevalent? I believe it is because we in the West find it useful. In domestic politics, it serves to silence representatives of certain kinds of faiths in the public sphere. The story is told repeatedly that the liberal state has learned to tame the dangerous divisiveness of contending religious beliefs by reducing them to essentially private affairs. In foreign policy, the conventional wisdom helps reinforce and justify Western attitudes and policies toward the non-Western world, especially Muslims, whose primary point of difference with the West is their stubborn refusal to tame religious passions in the public sphere. “We in the West long ago learned the sobering lessons of religious warfare and have moved toward secularization. The liberal nation-state is essentially a peacemaker. Now we only seek to share the blessings of peace with the Muslim world. Regrettably, because of their stubborn fanaticism, it is sometimes necessary to bomb them into liberal democracy.” In other words, the myth of religious violence establishes a reassuring dichotomy between their violence—which is absolutist, divisive, and irrational—and our violence—which is modest, unitive, and rational.
...
The myth of religious violence marks the “clash of civilizations” worldview that attributes Muslims’ animosity toward the West to their inability to learn the lessons of history and remove the baneful influence of religion from politics.
Click to expand...

But WHY are they more violent ?

There's approximately 2 billion Muslims on this planet: not even 1% of them are violent. Of course those condoning violence is higher than those partaking in the violence.

Both critics and followers of Islam tell us to read the Qu'ran
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
ronki23 said:
But WHY are they more violent ?

There's approximately 2 billion Muslims on this planet: not even 1% of them are violent. Of course those condoning violence is higher than those partaking in the violence.

Both critics and followers of Islam tell us to read the Qu'ran
Click to expand...
As I said : perception.
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
ronki23 said:
But WHY are they more violent ?
Click to expand...

The point of what I quoted is that it's a bad question. Given all the acts of violence from spousal abuse, child neglect, violent crimes and so forth there's no reason to believe that Muslims are more violent than others when everything is considered.

And even if we consider religious violence, violence in India against Muslims is a serious problem, for example.
Mob violence is also a mounting concern, occurring in 41 countries in 2018 (with resulting deaths in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia). India is a prominent concern, with recent mob attacks resulting in mass deaths. In December 2019, government-fomented mob attacks against those protesting the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act led to nearly 25 deaths.8 In February 2020, mobs killed over 50 people in attacks against Muslim neighborhoods in Delhi, with police either standing by or participating in the violence.9 Violence Based on Religion or Belief: Taking Action at the United Nations • Stimson Center
 
England my lionheart

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Although the cradle of Islam executed 81 people in one day in chop chop square 2022 Saudi Arabia is modernising,the minimum age for marriage is now 18 whereas it was anything goes so in places in the world Islam is changing,the stabbing is one idiot out of 2 billion.
 
A

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
They are more violent because someone put the word "Jihad" and the phrase "husbands may beat their wives gently" into the Koran I suppose. How these are interpreted and implemented leaves open the option for violence to fundamentalist type fanatics within the religion and culture. I wouldn't say its worse than what Christianity has been through...just many hundreds of years behind the times.

An interesting point though...in Christianity, a person who gave up their own life in martyredom was not an individual intent on killing others by dying in the act of violence. I see the islamic model as being a false religion because to them, taking out infidels in an act of violent martyredom produces an elevated afterlife. That is just complete nonsense...clearly an evil act from a false religion.
One may attempt to align this with the biblical Old Testament judge Samson. Jesus came to show us a new way, he did not demonstrate fundamentalist or any extreme acts of violence as a means of salvation, quite the opposite actually!
 
Last edited:
ronki23

ronki23

Well-Known Member
England my lionheart said:
Although the cradle of Islam executed 81 people in one day in chop chop square 2022 Saudi Arabia is modernising,the minimum age for marriage is now 18 whereas it was anything goes so in places in the world Islam is changing,the stabbing is one idiot out of 2 billion.
Click to expand...

Because some idiots think Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old when it was a mistranslation

Screenshot_20220609-232023~2.png
 
ronki23

ronki23

Well-Known Member
sun rise said:
The point of what I quoted is that it's a bad question. Given all the acts of violence from spousal abuse, child neglect, violent crimes and so forth there's no reason to believe that Muslims are more violent than others when everything is considered.

And even if we consider religious violence, violence in India against Muslims is a serious problem, for example.
Mob violence is also a mounting concern, occurring in 41 countries in 2018 (with resulting deaths in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia). India is a prominent concern, with recent mob attacks resulting in mass deaths. In December 2019, government-fomented mob attacks against those protesting the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act led to nearly 25 deaths.8 In February 2020, mobs killed over 50 people in attacks against Muslim neighborhoods in Delhi, with police either standing by or participating in the violence.9 Violence Based on Religion or Belief: Taking Action at the United Nations • Stimson Center
Click to expand...

41 countries in 2018 (with resulting deaths in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia).

Muslim majority countries. Please list the others
 
ronki23

ronki23

Well-Known Member
I am a Hindu in that I follow the Sikh Gurus and the Buddhas like many other Hindus do. I believe the Mahabharat and Ramayana were real events. However, I too disagree with several parts of the Mahabharat and Geeta:

A) Arjun married his first cousin Subudehra. She was the sister of Krishna and Krishna's father Vasudev was the brother of Arjun's mother Kunti. We do not marry our first cousins in Hinduism.

B) Bhishma and Drona fought against the Pandavs despite loving them as much as the Kauravas: they should not have partaken in the battle of Kurukshetra if that was the case

C) Krishna offered his army to Duryodan when he could've ended the war before it even began

D) Krishna told Arjun to attack Karna when Karna's chariot was stuck.

E) Krishna told Bhim to hit Duryodan's thigh even though that was against the rules

F) Krishna says to do your Dharam (duty) but that may lead people to do bad things

So in Hinduism there are bad people as well like Nathuram Godse or the Congress supporters who killed 5000+ Sikhs in 1984.

@Aupmanyav wasn't it the case that Godhra wasn't BJP's fault ?

@JustGeorge @sayak83 @Kirran
 
ronki23

ronki23

Well-Known Member
England my lionheart said:
Yemen Somalia and Bangladesh are high on .child marriage but I don’t think it makes them violent
Click to expand...

Marrying a child isn't a huge deal: Virgin Mary was 12 or 13 when she had Jesus: it's CONSUMATION that is a huge deal because those under 16 do not know right from wrong. Having sex with an under 16 is RAPE
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
ronki23 said:
Having sex with an under 16 is RAPE
Click to expand...

How to abuse a word twisting its meaning. Marriage of early teenagers was perfectly ok in the US. So what your asserting is that some US states have made rape legal because of someone's age Marriage Age by State 2022

Here are some additional notes by state:
  • Massachusetts: Age of consent to marry with parental consent for males is 14; for females is 12.
  • New Hampshire: Age of consent to marry with parental consent for males is 14; for females is 13.
States with No Minimum Age

As of July 1, 2019, 12 states have no minimum age when all exemptions are taken into account. These states are: California, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

But if you want to refer to age of consent to sex by nation? You see the age goes from 21 down to 11: Age of Consent by Country 2022
 
Link

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Salam

The error handling way of Quran, is that it explains how Islam is a false religion while showing a way to return to true Islam. It shows what happened in history or otherwise we would not be in this state if not.
 
Link

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Salam

Part of the way you know it, is to understand revelations always get corrupted by same forces. Know Illuminati to know what happened. You can't know the truth of who Yazid is without knowing what the Kahens are. You can't understand why Imam Hussain (a) was killed without understanding the enemies hidden and open, and the ways of the Kahens and the deceiving ways of sorcerers outwardly and inwardly.

And Satan is a manifest open enemy. Call him Iblis, call him other names, the rebellious one to God and his chosen kings, is a manifest enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top