Does Islam Promote Violence?

[YamiB.]

I don't think it is that irrelevant to the issue; we can start it if you like.
​

I don't see how the topic of the Atomic bombings in Japan has anything to do with the topic of violence and Islam.

 

[Smoke]

Hi, Peace4all --

First, thank you for your interesting and careful response. I appreciate it.

I also appreciate much of what you're saying is the Islamic teaching, and I regret that your interpretation doesn't seem to be more widespread.

I'm going to ask you to give ME an example of when Muslims conquered a city and they killed women and children. I am proud to say that I can find no example of when any Muslim ruler conquered a city and even TOUCHED a woman or child on purpose. That's a huge no no in Islam. They definitely have a lot of examples and can't justify their actions by pointing at a Muslim leader in the past.

Well, I was listing ways in which religions might promote violence or fail to promote violence; it wasn't my intention to answer the questions. I do find your statement above incredible, though. Surely you know that Tamerlane was a Muslim. Surely you must have read that Christians under the Ottomans were often forced to surrender a child for conversion to Islam and service in the Janissaries, and that captured Christian women were often forced into concubinage. Surely you've heard of the Turkish massacres of Armenians and Assyrians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

[gnostic]

I don't see how the topic of the Atomic bombings in Japan has anything to do with the topic of violence and Islam.

Agreed. This was WW2, and it has nothing to do with religion.

People who used A-bombs about Japan, people tends to ignore how many Chinese, South Koreans, Malyasians, Philippines, etc, that the Japanese had killed millions in their expansion, their barbaric tortures on foreigners, and how many women were either raped and used as their whores.

Japan got off scoff-free really. The Japanese Emperor should have captured, tried and executed for warcrime and his involvement in this war. Instead, he lived to see Japan prospered.

The two bombed Japanese cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were small prices in comparison to what the Japaneses did. So I would appreciate it if peace4all and jayhawker stopped using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as example of justification (or not) for war.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In what way were you offended?

I find irresponsible sloppiness and willful ignorance offensive.

950 K of people is what i remember from memory from a 7th grade Social studies compition (we scored 8th in state).

[No comment necessary.]

Sorry I was a little off, I swear it is in no way intentional.

Agreed - which is precisely what I meant when I spoke of self-deception and wallowing in hyperbole, It is an abberation that allows you to to quite sincerely view the difference between 950,000 and 214,000 people, a difference of nearly three quarters of a million people, as being "a little off".

Don't even try to convince me that the bombings were less than a massacre. I guess a "Dirty Jap" life is much less than an American one.

And this is more of the same.

Who here has argued that "the bombings were less than a massacre"?
Who here has argued that "a 'Dirty Jap' life is much less than an American one"?​

It seems to me that this reflects the same distorted and vitriolic grasp of reality that promotes and enables the likes of this ...

​

You are my dear brother regardless of your view. I believe if the world took steps like that it would be a better place to live.

View me as you wish. As for the rest, I, on the other hand, believe if people took steps to eradicate the irresponsible demagoguery that you've so clearly modelled, the world would be a better place to live.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Reality is that there are atrocities committed in the name of god sometimes. When people say, "look at the Muslim people they did *fill in the blank*". There are about 1.2 Billion Muslims in the world and probably like 1.5 Million Muslim people associated with some "terrorist" organization. That percentage makes .125% of Muslim people terrorists. I don't know why everyone clings to the .125%. What I am trying to prove is that Islam is a perfect religion; the people that follow it are not.

I believe the concern revolves around the extent to which the 1.2 Billion, and their leadership, enable the 1.5 Million.

If what you've said about Islam is true, one would think that barbaric excesses of the likes of the Taliban and the terrorism of al-Qaeda/al-Aqsa/Hamas/Hezbollah/etc. would be viewed as far, far more offensive than any cartoon. Yet where are the massive demonstrations against those insults to the life and work of Muhammed?

 

[winnieg]

The world must stop rounding all Muslims in one group.
I know plenty and they are not “The axis’s evil” some would like us to think.
The rotten apple does not make the whole barrel spoil.
It is all inflammatory, world leaders elected or not have a duty to promote peace then to fan the flames.
In the case of the Pope, he said in a round about way he is not taking it back, say sorry, after all he did not write it.
So if the word ****** was written by others, does that give us the right to repeat it?

True Muslims who truly fallow their faith are not inherently violent. They seek the same things we seek in life.
Most third world Muslim countries don’t have some of the things we take for granted.
Clean water, health care, education a way out of poverty.
Religion is not the cause, corrupted leaders elected or religious are.

 

[winnieg]

The world must stop rounding all Muslims in one group.
I know plenty and they are not “The axis’s evil” some would like us to think.
The rotten apple does not make the whole barrel spoil.
It is all inflammatory, world leaders elected or not have a duty to promote peace then to fan the flames.
In the case of the Pope, he said in a round about way he is not taking it back, say sorry, after all he did not write it.
So if the word (N word) was written by others, does that give us the right to repeat it?

True Muslims who truly fallow their faith are not inherently violent. They seek the same things we seek in life.
Most third world Muslim countries don’t have some of the things we take for granted.
Clean water, health care, education a way out of poverty.
Religion is not the cause, corrupted leaders elected or religious are.

 

[Laila]

No religion promotes violence. Unfortunately some people call themselves Muslims and then go against the good teachings of Islam. Based on bad behaviour others put ALL Muslims in the same category. It is not the fault of Islam if people don't follow it. It is not the fault of all Muslims if some out of their faith are bad. It is not the fault of Islam if people are too ignorant to be fair and understand that it is NEVER Islam that promotes violence.

 

[Peace4all]

Hi, Peace4all –

Walikumusalam

First, thank you for your interesting and careful response. I appreciate it.

I also appreciate much of what you're saying is the Islamic teaching, and I regret that your interpretation doesn't seem to be more widespread.
I regret so too.

Well, I was listing ways in which religions might promote violence or fail to promote violence; it wasn't my intention to answer the questions. I do find your statement above incredible, though. Surely you know that Tamerlane was a Muslim.

As a matter of fact his beliefs were questioned, similar to the questions of Hitler's faith. He fought against Muslims, not with them.

Surely you must have read that Christians under the Ottomans were often forced to surrender a child for conversion to Islam and service in the Janissaries

If they took adults and forced them into Islam I can see why that would be a barbaric and cruel thing. The Quran clearly states (I can't remember the exact verse at the moment) that it's a sin to forcefully convert someone. The question of "taking achild and training him for service for the Janissaries is truly barbaric" could be debated. It's not like they forced him into slavery or anything. Plus they did not take mass amounts of children and convert them such as other nations. If that's the most "barbaric" thing they did to a child then I guess I'm right.

and that captured Christian women were often forced into concubinage.

Surely I’ve never heard of that. I know that a lot of the Muslim leaders were not perfect but that seems to be far fetched. Some might find excuses for slaying civilians in cities, but raping? I trust brother and all but I'm going to have to have a citation for this. I can bet a leg that didn't happen.

Surely you've heard of the Turkish massacres of Armenians and Assyrians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I’ve really not gotten into studying the late stages of the Ottoman Empire but I’m not going to deny that they did not slay innocent civilians. When I speak of “examples” I speak of the examples in the 167h-18th century. The prophet prophesized that the Muslim Ummah (or people) would lose power as they swerved from his teachings and grew more decadent. Sure enough the Ottoman Empire fell in 1923. I would classify those Turks you speak of as Modern time, not the many earlier examples that I speak of.



Salam, I’m afraid I am not going to have much more time tonight to respond…

 

[Peace4all]

Agreed. This was WW2, and it has nothing to do with religion.

People who used A-bombs about Japan, people tends to ignore how many Chinese, South Koreans, Malyasians, Philippines, etc, that the Japanese had killed millions in their expansion, their barbaric tortures on foreigners, and how many women were either raped and used as their whores.

Japan got off scoff-free really. The Japanese Emperor should have captured, tried and executed for warcrime and his involvement in this war. Instead, he lived to see Japan prospered.

The two bombed Japanese cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were small prices in comparison to what the Japaneses did. So I would appreciate it if peace4all and jayhawker stopped using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as example of justification (or not) for war.

Salam,

Well I do have many argumants against you but I am sure some of our fellow citizens will take this offensviely and many people will think that i am trying to prove that the US government is a barbaric government. I still don't believe the attack is justified.

The two bombed Japanese cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were small prices in comparison to what the Japaneses did.

Lol, Such as what?
​

 

[Peace4all]

Could it be because they're trying to achieve political goals which some people agree with? I mean, if America's founding fathers resorted to religious justification for their actions and beliefs durring the revolutionary war, almost everyone would either A) by in to it because everyone was extremely religious and devout at the time or B) overlook it because they thought the political goals were so important that they could forgive a bit of self-indulgent religious justification.

Who's to say that the situation is any different today over in the middle east and parts of Asia?

Part of the problem Jay is that it's so easy to jump to conclusions and blame religion alone because that's the most "obvious" part. But you have to remember that there are political, social, and economical factors as well and we're doing a disservice to both the middle east situation and to humanity as a whole when we choose to overlook those factors because it's easy and convenient.

Frubals!:yes:

​

 

[shema]

Anyone can quote the Qur'an to show that the Qur'an doesn't promote violence, and anybody can quote the Gospels to show that Jesus doesn't promote violence. The problem is that Muslims in real life, more often than not, ignore the Qur'an and promote violence; Christians in real life, more often than not, ignore Jesus and promote violence. The Qur'an is not Islam, and Jesus was not a Christian.

Muslims riot in the streets and kill Christians at the slightest provocation. George Bush and Tony Blair, both Evangelical Christians, pursue policies of torture and unprovoked attack on other countries with the full and unquestioning support of the majority of Evangelical Christians in their countries. Benedict of Rome, like all Popes of Rome, condemns religious coercion in countries where his followers have no political power, and demands religious coercion in countries where his followers have political power.

It's often said that those who promote violence aren't "true" Muslims or "true" Christians. That doesn't mean anything to me at all. They're the Muslims and Christians we've got.

Don't preach the Qur'an to me to try to convince me that Islam isn't a violent religion; the actions of Muslims show me otherwise. Don't preach the teachings of Jesus to show me that Christianity isn't a violent religion; the actions of Christians show me otherwise.

Preach the Qur'an, preach it as long as you live, but not to me. Preach to Qur'an to Muslims, to turn them back to its teachings. Preach the teachings of Jesus, but not to me. Preach to Christians, to turn them back to Jesus' teachings. When Islam becomes a religion of peace, when Christianity becomes a religion of peace, we'll see it in the actions of Muslims and Christians, and we won't need convincing. It's not what we see now.

actually, I have to agree with you. That is so true. no matter how we look at it, the represenatives of these religions promote hate to the world...

 

[Peace4all]

actually, I have to agree with you. That is so true. no matter how we look at it, the represenatives of these religions promote hate to the world...

No, I don't believe Saddam Hussein is the representative of Islam :no: ..
The whole Sunna is based on prophet Mohamed's PBUH teachings. That means that he is literally the prime representatives in Islam and is our role model in our relgious life. Whenever scholars have trouble about some rules they go back to the actions of the prophet PBUH to see what he did in a similar situation.


​

 

[gnostic]

Lol, Such as what?

So you don't think the Japaneses were brutal, during their invasion across Asia?

China alone had suffered loss of lives far higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined together. And those who lived, suffered more from tortured, slavery and rapes at the hands of the Japaneses.

Sorry, but don't expect me to have pity on the Japaneses through that war.

 

[kai]

Salam,

Well I do have many argumants against you but I am sure some of our fellow citizens will take this offensviely and many people will think that i am trying to prove that the US government is a barbaric government. I still don't believe the attack is justified.

Lol, Such as what?

I cant beleive you dont know!
, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military "murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."[2]

In China alone, during 1937-45, approximately 9.13 million civilians were killed, and there were another 8.4 million Chinese civilian casualties. (See Chinese Casualties in the Sino-Japanese War.) The most infamous incident during this period was the Nanjing Massacre of 1937-38, when, according to the findings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Japanese Army massacred 260,000 civilians and prisoners of war.[3]

sourcE:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

 

[Peace4all]

So you don't think the Japaneses were brutal, during their invasion across Asia?

China alone had suffered loss of lives far higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined together. And those who lived, suffered more from tortured, slavery and rapes at the hands of the Japaneses.

Sorry, but don't expect me to have pity on the Japaneses through that war.

Oh yes, I do think they were brutal.

Let me play the Devils Advocate Here:
So you don't think the Japanese were brutal, during their invasion across the world?

Afghanistan alone had suffered loss of lives far higher than Both Twin Towers, combined together. And those who lived, suffered more from rape at the hands of the Americans.
(Not to be the bearer of bad news, but believe it or not, there are many reports of rape by American Soldiers)

Sorry, but don't expect me to have pity on the Americans throught 9/11.

Ok, so why is argument above not valid?
The US government has installed puppet governments in Muslim Countries to rule in best interest of the US. The US is indirectly and directly responsible for the starvation of Millions, the torturing of thousands of leaders trying to overthrow these puppet governments, the Decrease of wealth in the economies, and the deaths of thousands by bombing.

Still, is it any excuse to wedge a plane into a tower? No.

First off Doesn't mean that since the government did a few things here and there you go kill a bunch of civilians. You sound like you are justifying the bombing by saying that the Japanese were cruel and deserve it. So why is that the fault of the many children and women killed in the bombings?

​

 

[Peace4all]

I cant beleive you dont know!
, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military "murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."[2]

In China alone, during 1937-45, approximately 9.13 million civilians were killed, and there were another 8.4 million Chinese civilian casualties. (See Chinese Casualties in the Sino-Japanese War.) The most infamous incident during this period was the Nanjing Massacre of 1937-38, when, according to the findings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Japanese Army massacred 260,000 civilians and prisoners of war.[3]

sourcE:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Oh, I promise you I know.
I thought he was talking about what the Japanese did to the U.S. The US did not have that many casualties in the pacific assault compared to the casualties of the Japanese. So I was wondering what "crimes" did Japan commit against the U.S other than Pearl Harbor.

​

 

[kai]

[F I promise you I know.[/FONT]
[F thought he was talking about what the Japanese did to the U.S. The US did not have that many casualties in the pacific assault compared to the casualties of the Japanese. So I was wondering what "crimes" did Japan commit against the U.S other than Pearl Harbor. [/FONT]

​

the declaration of war

and this is off topic what does this have to do with the OP are you defending Islam by saying the japanese were more violent or are you saying the americans were more violent. its easy to sit and look back 60 years and condemn the atomic bomb attacks thats worthy of a different thread though

 

[Peace4all]

the declaration of war

and this is off topic what does this have to do with the OP are you defending Islam by saying the japanese were more violent or are you saying the americans were more violent. its easy to sit and look back 60 years and condemn the atomic bomb attacks thats worthy of a different thread though

Hmmmm:sarcastic

to tell you the truth, I don't even remember how we got into this subject... but no I am not trying to defend Islam by saying that ANYONE was more violent. Two wrongs dont make a right , but three lefts do .( I can' remember where i got that from)
​

 

[kai]

Hmmmm:sarcastic

to tell you the truth, I don't even remember how we got into this subject... but no I am not trying to defend Islam by saying that ANYONE was more violent. Two wrongs dont make a right , but three lefts do .( I can' remember where i got that from)
​

I know what you mean you start off on topic and the next thing you know you are off at a tangent, i find myself doing it all the time