David Young
Member
Leaving aside the facetious replies, what is the real reason Islam is sometimes called a "religion of peace"?
-
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 term "religion of peace"
- Thread starter David Young
- Start date
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Because the teachings of Islam are very peaceful .
Regards
rational experiences
Veteran Member
The history agreed
Ain was the hit mountain star accumulated particles UFO ark. Attack on life. New life emerged from the old harmed.
Ain meant zero in Hebrew.
The new Jesus review was the Prince of peace. Not any king.
Lords agreed. Kings weren't needed in the tribes. Brothers should apply order by the Lord's. Agreed.
So 0AD Jesus was agreed and each nation a holy lord did his civil duty. A brother of peace.
Ain was the hit mountain star accumulated particles UFO ark. Attack on life. New life emerged from the old harmed.
Ain meant zero in Hebrew.
The new Jesus review was the Prince of peace. Not any king.
Lords agreed. Kings weren't needed in the tribes. Brothers should apply order by the Lord's. Agreed.
So 0AD Jesus was agreed and each nation a holy lord did his civil duty. A brother of peace.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
The term first appeared in 1930 (it was the title of a book about Islam), but it came into popular use following the rise in Islamist terrorism, particularly amongst western politicians attempting to distance regular Muslims from the extremist violence. It is also sometimes used by apologists in response to claims that Islam is a violent religion.
However, it is demonstrably a nonsensical claim. Islam cannot rationally or reasonably be described as a "religion of peace", without ignoring large parts of the Quran and sunnah. The reality is that Islam is a religion of peace and violence, of tolerance and intolerance, of equality and discrimination. It is favourable towards those who accept it, but hostile (sometimes violently) towards those who reject or oppose it.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
They aren't though. Not really.
There are far more references to fighting people who reject Islam than there are about being nice to them.
But selective - so any different from some others?
Audie
Veteran Member
The more this absurd falsehood is repeated the
worse Islam looks.
May as well be Putin saying " we wont invade".
More respectable to just say the truth.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Kind of like Putin's "peacekeeping forces" currently invading Ukraine.
Audie
Veteran Member
The more they say it the less we believe it
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Because only when you "live in submission to the Will of God" you are Granted ultimate Peace
Audie
Veteran Member
So you say.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
I found this on Quora:
"The first reference we have is from late 1930, in the title of a book published in India by Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi. The phrase was slow to take off, but by the 1970s it was appearing more and more frequently in the writings of Muslims for Western audiences. An effective proselytising slogan for marketing the faith, financed thru petrodollars. Post 2001, the phrase gained wide spread awareness as western politicians used it in imp public announcements post terror attacks."
It is that mindset that found Joseph Ratzinger's (Bennedict XVI) speech so negative.
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Pope maintained that the comment he had quoted did not reflect his own views. His statement has been included as a footnote in the official text of the lecture available at Vatican website:
In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.
My own personal position would be that Islam is a religion of peach, but with a corrupted political agenda within it.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Ratzinger was a scary and psychopathic man.
I think t started peacefully but when he preached in mecca it was like selling a freezer to an arctic expedition so he had to leave mecca,IMO this is where the quran goes from peaceful to violent,this can be seen in the verses of mecca and yathrib/medina where he goes next,robs some caravans gets war booty slaves etc and chops off 73 ish heads andthe first time jihad appeared,i have no idea why it would be called a"religion of peace today".
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
My impression has been that the phrase was initially intended as a defense by Muslims and their rhetoric allies against the usual Islamophobic rhetoric focusing on the issue of jihad and Islam's reputation in the West as a religion for fanatics and terrorists.
Since then it has naturally been appropriated by Islam's worst critics; these days, the only time I see it come up is when people try to back-handedly insert Islamophobia into an argument without coming out and honestly expressing their disgust and hatred towards Muslims.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Sorry, not sure what you were trying to say there. Were you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
This is fairly clear from reading the Quran in chronological order (the published version seems to be arranged by chapter length, for some reason).
He starts off fairly conciliatory and respectful, but as he gains more military and political power, the tone changes and towards the end becomes outright belligerent and intolerant. Entirely understandable and pragmatic.