Active Now

Malizz
Slartibartfast
Zack
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » Which sect of Islam is known as the Religion of Peace? Are Sunni peaceful or Shia or some other sect?
texasescimo

Which sect of Islam is known as the Religion of Peace? Are Sunni peaceful or Shia or some other sect?

I've heard some refer to Islam as the Religion of Peace.

Posted - March 10, 2018
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

    Have a ball.
      March 10, 2018 5:13 PM MST
    0

  • 2657
    If you have an answer, let me know. I didn't make it up, some do say that Islam is the Religion of Peace. 
      March 10, 2018 5:39 PM MST
    0

  • 46117
    Read.  That's my answer.  You know nothing about Islam and are asking weird questions  that cannot be answered by yes or no.

    You love posting 1000 word answers.  That is my 1000 word answer.  I thought you would like that.
      March 10, 2018 5:41 PM MST
    1

  • 2657
    I know you always say that you are God so why can't you answer the question? Do you know that there is not a sect of Islam that is known as the Religion of Peace? I would think that can be answered by someone more knowledgeable than myself and you, but then again, you say you are God.
      March 10, 2018 5:44 PM MST
    0

  • 46117
    SO, you are saying if I were GOD I would answer the question?

    If that is so, then ASK GOD to answer you.  You know by that logic, if He doesn't answer you, THEN HE IS NOT GOD?

    ...from the web (I am NOT a Muslim, I don't pretend to be a Muslim expert)
    Some might argue that they are outnumbered by Sunnis, but I can counter-argue by claiming that the population of Pakistani Sunni Muslims along with Saudi Arabians combined are almost identical to the total Shia population in the world, yet both of these countries produced numerous Sunni terrorists.

    It is true that Shias have their own terrorists, (Houthis and Hezbollah), but aside from the few embassy bombing abroad committed by Hezbollah, the Shia terrorists are mostly regional. They will not go and attack Western civilians even if the West has had a long rivalry with Shia Iran and was greatly responsible for turning Shia-majority Iraq into a total hellhole.


    This is the kind of stuff you read on the WEB.   My answer is the same.

    If you are a Muslim you don't kill people.  Anyone who is a terrorist is no Muslim no matter what they label themselves. 


    I am not a SOLDIER OF CHRIST  and I am not a SOLDIER of Muhammed.  I am truly more Godlike than that.


    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at March 10, 2018 5:50 PM MST
      March 10, 2018 5:45 PM MST
    0

  • 2657
    If they removed known murderers, terrorist and such from their count, wouldn't it be easier to call them the Religion of Peace instead of claiming them to pump up their numbers? Christians remove anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. Of course, that is what some people complain about.

    To clarify, this is not a statement, but a question: 'Do you know that there is not a sect of Islam that is known as the Religion of Peace?'

    EDIT: Wrong on that logic as you miss the context. God would not say that such a simple question cannot be answered as you said.  This post was edited by texasescimo at March 10, 2018 5:57 PM MST
      March 10, 2018 5:55 PM MST
    0

  • 5391
    Islam, in its basic tenets, is not peaceful, no matter what its enthralled acolytes claim.

    197 references to Jihad (holy war), atrocious “Honor Killings”, the issuance of fatwas - the call to convert or (primarily) kill unbelievers and -worse- apostates as a sacred duty of Muslim men are mentioned throughout the Quran. The stated goal of Islam is world domination, to exterminate the infidels “where you find them”.
    Failing that, we see plenty of Muslims exterminating each other on a daily basis. Where is this alleged “peace“?

    If this were 100 years ago, I’d measure Christianity as mankind’s worst liability, Islam has since taken it’s place, in my view. We’d do well as a species to shed both. 

    The closest I’ve encountered to a truly peaceful religion is Jainism, but few people choose to live in this way. 


    This post was edited by Don Barzini at March 11, 2018 9:58 AM MDT
      March 11, 2018 7:46 AM MDT
    1

  • 1393
    If the question has done one thing, it has provided written evidence, in your answer, of the level of love some people can have for Islam, and Muslims. The internet is not short of material far more extreme than this, of course.

    "Islam, in its basic tenets, is not peaceful" >>> and what are the basic tenets of Islam?

    "Jihad (holy war)" >>> so the Arabic word Jihad is holy war? Excellent command of the language?

    "atrocious “Honor Killings”" are an exclusively Islamic issue?

    "the call to convert or kill unbelievers and -worse- apostates as a sacred duty of Muslim men are mentioned throughout the Quran" >>> Now that claim itself turns over one billion Muslims into rebels for not following the calls "mentioned throughout the Quran"

    "The stated goal of Islam is world domination, to exterminate the infidels “>>> that is also very clear to see. We all know of how Muslims are the world's leading manufacturers and exporters of cutting edge war machinery, how Muslims have numerous military bases, scattered all over the world, and how one can find Muslims almost every month flying bombing sorties to far off non-Muslim lands turning their cities to rubble and turning those that manage to escape alive into refugees pushed from country to country.

    The reason why there isn't a continuous stream of non-Muslims being killed is because fourteen centuries of the command to kill non-Muslims "where you find them” has reduced non-Muslims to a tiny eighty [80] percent of the world population making them extremely difficult to come across to kill.

    "We’d do well as a species to shed both" >>> what an endearing expression of love and tolerance to sign off the scholarly analysis with. ISIS must have the same loving objective. That's why "we see plenty of Muslims exterminating each other on a daily basis."

    A well educated, inspiring and compassionate discourse? One to be proud of?
      March 11, 2018 10:46 AM MDT
    0

  • 5391
    Laughable rationalizing.
    That Muslims haven’t dominated the entire world as yet is more a function of their historic military impotency than of their allegedly peaceful doctrine. Blame the forces of Western Christianity for your lot, as usual. You may actually have a case this time, much difference it will make.
    Both backward cults are affronts to reason, peace and humanity.  

    Please deny for us that Islam has seeded some of the worst societal cancers. Clurt, can you say: ISIS(Daesh), the Taliban, Boko Haram, Sharia Law, or doctrinal misogyny? I know you can. 
    Hmmm. Would these iniquities exist at all without the HQ?

    As for ISIS, you as a Muslim might know more about their reasoning than anyone here. Please rationalize to us how they aren’t true Muslims, again, ... or are they? I digress.

    No, ”atrocious Honor Killings” aren't exclusive to Islam, but Islamic sects still perform them nonetheless. No matter who practices this evil, murdering women and girls is no less despicable, and it’s practitioners deserve no quarter in being taken to task for it. 

    ...and to hell with tolerance; daily, we witness the various and entitled “Parties of God” regaling us with their ingrained intolerance toward each other, science, secularism and, particularly, unbelievers. ... Or is ”infidel” a term of endearment in Islam? Is speaking against Islam not still punishable by death? Is it not Allah’s instruction to kill/convert infidels?  Well? 

    Islam is not peaceful, certainly not a beacon of freedom and tolerance, and no predominantly Muslim society has thus far demonstrated that it is. Quite the opposite. Sustain some peace in your own homelands before you (Muslims) presume to lecture anyone else about peace. Get your Tribal house in order before YOU come at an atheist again about intolerance. We’ve seen more of it than you have. 

    You are of course free to play the Persecution Card if it makes you feel any better, Clurt, those touchy Christians do it almost reflexively when they’re getting pushed around. Why shouldn’t you?

    Humanity would be in a far better place absent these stagnant Dark Ages dogmas. 



    This post was edited by Don Barzini at March 11, 2018 9:59 PM MDT
      March 11, 2018 4:07 PM MDT
    2

  • 1393
    1. You’ve asked a lot of questions. I hope you’ll be true to yourself and read my answers and check them out against scholarly and objective sources.

    2. My premise is that injustice should never be supported no matter who it is committed by. If you agree then we’re on the same side and should join hands against it. Ignorance and distorted or incomplete information and irrational analysis are an impediment to justice.

    3. It is important to be informed that in Qur’anic Islam, justice reigns supreme, way above self-interest. That means Islam requires a person to incriminate him or herself if that will prevent an unjust judgement. By contrast, in most modern secular law one is allowed to withhold self-incriminating information. In Qur’anic Islam justice is done if everything gets what is rightfully due to it or if everything is rendered to its rightful owner. The rightful owner of the universe and existence, in the absence of any other claimant, is God. It is thus a great injustice, in Qur’anic Islam, to attribute ownership of any part of the universe, or existence, to other than God. So one can see that faith itself is a product of justice and therefore subservient to it. That is how powerful the concept of justice is in Qur’anic Islam. If these concepts were properly understood and sincerely implemented then there would be no injustice, no unrest as a result and there would thus be peace. However, humans are often blinded by self-interest.

    4. You speculate, “That Muslims haven’t dominated the entire world as yet is more a function of their historic military impotency than of their allegedly peaceful doctrine.” Someone following your “rationalising” could equally speculate, “That DB hasn’t rid the entire world of Christians and Muslims as yet is more a function of his military impotency than of his allegedly rational thinking.”

    5. “Both backward cults are affronts to reason, peace and humanity.” Is not exactly evidence of tolerance nor of rationality in its sweeping generalisations.

    6. You claim that “Islam has seeded some of the worst societal cancers [such as] ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Sharia Law, or doctrinal misogyny [which would not] exist at all without the HQ”

    6.1 If you read objective scholarly reports you’ll find, for example, that some of those groups were put together and armed, with stinger missiles, by the Western bloc in its fight against the Eastern bloc on land populated by Muslims. As for your advice to Muslims to “Sustain some peace in your own homelands”, is it directed at the Muslims of Malaysia, or Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, or Iraq, bombed into an anarchy ironically using WMDs for allegedly harbouring WMDs, a devastation that “has seeded some of the worst societal cancers [such as] ISIS”, or is the advice directed at Syrians being torn apart in yet another war between Russia and the West?

    6.2 Laws everywhere are, or should be, designed to enable society to function smoothly and justly for the benefit of the society as a whole. Sharia law is no different in intent. “Secular” laws differ from one country to another and so does Sharia law. In terms of penal codes, most “secular” laws have moved to imprisonment as a punishment. This can last years, is heavy on resources, is a financial taxation burden on the innocent, punishes the whole family by depriving it of the companionship and love and, in most cases, of a breadwinner, and has other downsides. Sharia law prefers to return the offender back into society after a short sharp deterrent punishment which can, on rare occasions, be severe, if certain strict preconditions are met.

    6.3 The fact that four times as many women convert to Islam as men is evidence that either there really is no “doctrinal misogyny” in Islam or that there is something seriously and mysteriously wrong with the educated western women who convert to Islam after studying it.

    7. “Please rationalize to us how they [ISIS] aren’t true Muslims” >>> Just like the labels “Not a true golfer” and “not a true boxer”, for example, can be used against those who do not abide by their respective accepted rules of conduct, so I expect it is with the label “not a true Muslim”

    8. In conceding that “”atrocious Honor Killings” aren't exclusive to Islam” you have partially embraced a fact. That’s good for you and you might now want to fully embrace the fact that they are actually not sanctioned by Qur’anic Islam even though they are commanded in the Bible [if a bride is found not to be a virgin at the consummation of marriage she should be taken to the doorway of her father’s house and there be stoned to death]

    9. “is ”infidel” a term of endearment in Islam?” >>> First, the term “infidel” is probably what the crusaders used to refer to Muslims and others not subscribing to their doctrines. The Qur’an mostly uses the term “Kafir” which comes from the verb “kafara” meaning to cover up. Farmers do that to seeds and that is why they are referred to as “Kafirs” Islam uses that term for nonbelievers because Islam argues that we are surrounded by pointers to, or inferential evidence for, the existence God and that nonbelievers cover up this evidence, hence they are Kafirs. The concept is similar to that in the saying “burying one’s head in the sand, like an ostrich”

    10. “Is speaking against Islam not still punishable by death?” >>> If some countries have done that, it is not evidence that Islam commands it.

    11. “Is it not Allah’s instruction to kill/convert infidels?” >>> for “infidels” see above. If the answer implied in the question is “yes” then why aren’t the nearly 1.8 billion Muslims around the world carrying out that command? Why does the Qur’an say “there is no compulsion in religion” and elsewhere tell Muslims to say to nonbelievers, obviously in the spirit of tolerance and peaceful coexistence, “unto you your way of life, and unto us our way of life” and why when mentioning the fate of a person who apostates repeatedly, the Qur’an doesn’t prescribe death or any other earthly punishment?

    12. “Get your collective tribal house in order before you come at me again about intolerance.” >>> erm there’s only you and me in this, I think. So which one of us has more posts that are intolerant of others?

    13. “Humanity would be in a far better place absent these stagnant Dark Ages dogmas.” >>> It is ironic that you should use the term Dark Ages. It is a term applied to a nearly thousand year period of history in the Middle Ages when Europe was plunged into its Dark Ages supposedly by its religion. Not far away another people spurred by another religion took the lead in many existing fields of learning, opened up new ones and used a methodology of investigating and establishing facts we now call science. These early Muslims made tremendous progress for eight centuries, a period longer than half the current 14 century age of Qur’anic Islam, and helped to pull Europe out of its Dark Ages and into its Renaissance.
      March 12, 2018 12:41 AM MDT
    0

  • 5391
    Your reply is appreciated, but there is more there than I am inclined to go into at length. 
     
    On point 3: I get that Allah is the final adjudicator, ultimate possessor of all things, etc. But Islam still hasn’t established Allah exists. 

    4: True. I have no Armies. But as a combat vet (in the Gulf War) I know better than to start war over beliefs. I was in one. Ideals aren’t changed with guns.
    But my push against false and wicked preachments will continue, nonetheless.

    6: you diverted the conversation. Stay with me here-
    All those human cancers I listed are Muslims. They continue to do great evil. To everyone. They rabidly claim to follow the HQ, TRUE believers.
    Evil preachments, I say. 

    Thought for you:
    Women are required to cover themselves in what, most Muslim countries? Even when abroad. They often are denied the same privileges as men, perhaps less so now than in the past: that’s Misogyny, Clurt, by definition. Proscribed by the religion- Doctrinal.  

    7: If one claims to believe something, to be of a particular belief, who is anyone to say they are not TRUE believers? How is their faith any less valid or correct than your version of the same faith? Labels? No, misapprehensions. 

    9: playing semantics. No appetite for it. 

    10: Islam commands it?
    Salmon Rushdie. Charlie Hebdo - off the the top of my head. Why were they targeted? (don’t answer, I know.) Stop fooling yourself.


    11: Clearly you’re in denial. The HQ spells out in great detail how unbelievers and apostates are to be dealt with. Repeatedly, it’s death. What HQ are you working with? 

    12: I told you- To hell with “tolerance”. It has weakened people‘s resolve, to the point of acquiescence.  I have no tolerance for false, destructive beliefs. I will not acquiesce.

    13: Irony is that both Christianity and Islam polished up their acts during the Dark Ages. The latter copying the former. Neither based in fact. 

    It is true that 1000 years ago, Baghdad was the center of academic achievement in all manner of disciplines: Algebra, astronomy, poetry, philosophy. But enter the influence of Islam that decried that (among other prohibitions) manipulating numbers was now the work of the devil. The entire enterprise closed up, almost overnight. Never to recover. The name of the particular Muslim Cleric responsible eludes me...

    It can not be asserted strongly enough that humanity suffers from its addiction to faith. The silly god stories that men made up to fill the void are unworthy of our respect.


    respect. Tfdemise can’t henough. 




















    This post was edited by Don Barzini at March 13, 2018 3:21 PM MDT
      March 12, 2018 4:15 PM MDT
    1

  • 1393

    1. I’m the one who should have said, on seeing all your questions, “there is more there than I am inclined to go into at length.” but I wasn’t daunted.

    3. If you really “get that Allah is the final adjudicator, ultimate possessor of all things, etc” despite the fact that “Islam [or anyone else] still hasn’t established Allah exists.” then you must have got it through reason and exercise of free choice.

    4. We’re on the same page on “Ideals aren’t changed with guns.” and hopefully shoulder to shoulder on the “push against false and wicked preachments.”

    6. Your comments here indicate that you did not see that I separately addressed the multiple points you raised under this number. So I won’t go there again until you have a valid challenge to what I’ve already posted. However, I’ll add this in response to your comments here, and you can challenge either point: [a] history is full of people taking up violent armed rebellion irrespective of religion, and (b) there is nothing more misogynistic than to effectively tell women “you’re just women, I’m not interested in your views about your choices” which is what your response boils down to.

    7. “who is anyone to say they are not TRUE [A or B]” >>> If A or B have authoritative bodies controlling membership to A or B then it will be the decision of those bodies. If not, then everyone will have their opinion on it. Islam does not have an organisation or any body, no matter how local or small, that has an authoritative say on who is a Muslim and who is not. The biggest open violator of all known Islamic principles can say he’s a Muslim.

    9. “playing semantics.” What by defining a word you used? “No appetite for it” can only mean you don’t like words being given their correct meanings. That’s your choice.

    10. Are you serious or just playing games here? We’ll drop it, if it’s the latter. You asked whether “speaking against Islam [is] punishable by death?” the phrase “punishable by death” meant a legal entity carrying out a death sentence. So I said “If some countries have done that, it is not evidence that Islam commands it.” In your response you mention Salmon Rushdie. Charlie Hebdo and add “don’t answer, I know.” Okay, we’re here to learn from each other, so if you know then tell me the Qur’anic verses that command it.

    11. If “The HQ spells out in great detail how unbelievers and apostates are to be dealt with. Repeatedly, it’s death.” then shouldn’t quoting the clearest or even a random verse showing that, have been the easiest thing to do?

    12. “I have no tolerance for false, destructive beliefs.” >>> that’s another of your very interesting remarks. I mean it. You see it makes me wonder whether the so called World Wars 1 and 2 [death tolls 65 and 72 millions respectively] and the wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and in Syria were/are the result of “false, destructive beliefs”

    13. “But enter the influence of Islam …” is either a blatant contradiction of what you said immediately before it, “Baghdad was the center of academic achievement in all manner of disciplines: Algebra, astronomy, poetry, philosophy.” or an assertion that Baghdad was not yet Islamic when that happened.


    This post was edited by CLURT at March 13, 2018 3:37 PM MDT
      March 13, 2018 3:29 PM MDT
    0

  • 5391
    Clurt, you should have realized by now that playing the quote scripture game is an exercise in futility, because either of us can find/cherrypick verses of scripture to suit our arguments. I won’t dignify the fraud, ... and it is just that, a fraud. 

    Further, once again I’ve explained my points to you amply and at more length than you really deserve. On the whole, you are unreceptive. I bid you to ACTUALLY research some of the points I raise. Whether you do or not is your affair. 

    I’ve said all I intend to on this thread, take it for what you will. I rate your “points” as trifling and unpersuasive, tainted by the backward, self-aggrandizing nonsense of your misbegotten desert Cult. 


    This post was edited by Don Barzini at March 13, 2018 10:17 PM MDT
      March 13, 2018 9:47 PM MDT
    0

  • 1393
    DB
    someone who hasn't the stamina for a marathon shouldn't challenge anyone to it
    if someone doesn't have the depth of knowledge they imply they have they will soon issue excuses to cover up
    ad hominems and insults are unnecessary, they are a self unmasking of a person who appeared to have value for social graces

    have a nice day anyway
      March 13, 2018 11:44 PM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    Quote: "...someone who hasn't the stamina for a marathon shouldn't challenge anyone to it..."

    I find it odd that someone that makes taunts about the Bible being changed and unreliable and refuses to communicate after two questions about Islam come up would make a taunt towards someone else as if they don't have stamina after trying to take their leave.

    Found this from those knowledgeable about Islam:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy#The_Muhammad_cartoons_crisis

    Quran[edit]

    There are a number of surah in Qur'an relating to blasphemy, from which Quranic verses 5:33 and 33:57–61 have been most commonly used in Islamic history to justify punishment for blasphemy.[6][13][14] For example,[6]

    The only punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. This shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement. Except those who repent before you overpower them; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

    Many Quranic commentators and jurists have based their treatment of blasphemy on this verse, interpreting blasphemy "within the definition of waging war".[6] The final portion of the verse waives punishment if the offender repents, but it has often been ignored or dismissed as applying only to non-Muslims.[6] Many scholars have also used the following verse to justify punishing blasphemy:[6]

    Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment. Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).

    However, other jurists have held that these verses were to be acted upon only during Muhammad's lifetime, since they referred to specific forms of action and circumstances, authorizing punishment only for offenders under Muhammad's jurisdiction.[6]

    Hadiths[edit]

    Muhammad ordered the execution of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf.[15] After the Battle of Badr, Ka'b had incited the Quraysh against Muhammad, and also urged them to seek vengeance against Muslims. Another person executed was Abu Rafi', who had actively propagandized against Muslims immediately before the Battle of Ahzab. Both of these men were guilty of insulting Muhammad, and both were guilty of inciting violence. While some[who?] have explained that these two men were executed for blaspheming against Muhammad, an alternative explanation[according to whom?] is that they were executed for treason and causing disorder (fasad) in society.[16]

    One hadith[which?] tells of a man who killed his slave because she persisted in insulting Muhammad. Upon hearing this, Muhammad is reported to have exclaimed: "Do you not bear witness that her blood is futile!" (anna damah hadarun)[17][6] This expression can be read as meaning that the killing was unnecessary, implying that Muhammad condemned it.[6] However, most hadith specialists interpreted it as voiding the obligation of paying the blood money which would normally be due to the woman's next of kin.[6] Another hadith reports Muhammad using an expression which clearly indicates the latter meaning: [6]

    Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

    https://muflihun.com/abudawood/39/4349

      March 14, 2018 9:17 AM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    Don, I am curious about this quote: [If this were 100 years ago, I’d measure Christianity as mankind’s worst liability, Islam has since taken it’s place, in my view. We’d do well as a species to shed both. ]

    Was there a Christian religion that had a history of being violent or involved in wars? If so, please name one. (Not saying that there wasn't.)

    This is my understanding:
    (2 Corinthians 10:3) For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh.
      March 13, 2018 3:30 PM MDT
    0

  • 5391
    Um, yea, it was called Christianity when it waged war on Arab civilians during The Crusades. It was called Roman Catholicism when it wiped out the natives of the Americas, fought wars in Europe over titles and when it bred Adolf Hitler. It was called the Holy See who signed the very first treaty aligning with the Nazis. 

    I do not frame all believers in the light of the transgressions of their ancestral past. I do expect they understand them, and grasp that it is irrational (and dangerous) when people make extraordinary claims about the world that are devoid of empirical evidence. Alas, far too many do not. This post was edited by Don Barzini at March 13, 2018 9:59 PM MDT
      March 13, 2018 9:19 PM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    I was thinking that Catholicism waged war in the Crusades and Christendom, Catholics and Protestants both, participated in wiping out natives of the Americas and while the Catholic Church signed the concordat and many rose in ranks of the SS, other Churches of Christendom in Germany and a few other countries also supported Hitler.


    "The Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), and Germany's vice chancellor, Franz von Papen, formally signed a concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich on July 20, 1933"
      March 14, 2018 9:24 AM MDT
    0

  • 13395
    People of the Baha'i Faith although Baha'i is not a sect of Muslim, they claim to be a separate religion kind of like Christianity was born from Judaism perhaps. Baha'u'Alla (ba-howl-a) founded the religion in 1850 to maybe try to bring a degree of sanity to the Muslim people -course they are very much persecuted in the middle east countries. 
      March 11, 2018 10:16 AM MDT
    0

  • 2706
    I've done a whole passel of research on Muhammad and Islam and if you're lookin for my personal opinion, then I'd have to say, no, Islam isn't a religion of peace. Doesn't matter what sect it is. I'm talking about the religion as a whole, and Muhammad in particular, not individual Muslims in the world today. 
      March 11, 2018 12:57 PM MDT
    2

  • 1393
    I've read your opinion, and for reasons expressed in my answer and my comments you will see that my opinion is different to yours. It's okay for opinions to differ, and on this subject they do quite widely, but I feel that must never lead to hatred or the promotion of hatred.
      March 12, 2018 9:59 AM MDT
    0

  • 2706
    Hatred is a huge factor in why the world has the problems it has now. 
      March 12, 2018 10:24 AM MDT
    0

  • 7939
    Given that you personally have experienced religious persecution, I'm a little dismayed that you'd present a question that invites the same of others. I don't see this as being a good-faith information-seeking question, but rather an opportunity to bash members of a specific religion. Of course, it sits right on the border of that, and surely people will make of it what they will. 

    If you're genuinely seeking information, you'll find the answers you're looking for on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_peace

    There isn't a religion on earth that's been around for an extended period of time that has not been bastardized and used to kill innocents. Christians have created the highest body count thus far: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/which-religion-most-violent/ 

    Imagine, for just a moment, a group of JWs went rogue and started killing in the name of Jehovah. (It does happen, but usually with individuals who have been booted from the church and separated from their families. Ya'll kill your own, not so much outsiders.) I'd be willing to bet JWs everywhere would be outraged, though, if a group started killing and claiming their religion was the root of it. Well, that's exactly how the vast majority of Muslims feel about terrorism too. So, I'm not keen on framing questions like this that make it seem like they're not peaceful loving people. They are. Just like any religion may have terrible extremists, Islam does as well. What a person does with his or her religion is up to him or her. 

    I could easily go and grab a list of links that talk about JW violence, but I doubt I'd be showing you something you haven't seen before. I'm an atheist, so I'm not big on bible verses, but I do believe there's something in there about not throwing rocks from glass houses or having logs in your eye while you point out the sliver in your neighbor's eye. That might not be something JWs subscribe to though, I suppose. Granted, any link I showed you, you'd probably argue was not a true follower... Well, many (arguably most) Muslims feel the same. They just aren't here to defend themselves and really, they shouldn't have to. 
      March 11, 2018 3:40 PM MDT
    2

  • 2657
    Quote: "Ya'll kill your own, not so much outsiders." Nice jab. JW's do not kill their own or anyone else. If they did, they would be removed from the congregation(1 Cor 5:9-13) and hopefully prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Of course you can claim and ex-JW as a "Ya'll" if you like.

    JW's are condemned because they allow people that have committed crimes in the past to become JW's after studying and changing their way of life and confessing their sins(James 5:16). Then because they are now JW's their previous wrong doings are blamed on JW's because a record is kept. Atheist and other religions don't confess or admit wrongdoing so don't have that in their numbers. Then JW's are condemned for not disfellowshipping them for what they did when they were an atheist, Catholic, Muslim or whatever. Then when a JW commits a gross sin while he was actually a JW and gets disfellowshipped for it, opposers turn around and cry foul on that. 


    You think I just decided to ask this question out of the blue?
    Just a little irritated at an individual that goes around claiming the Bible has been changed in thread after thread and that the Bible is open to every and any interpretation while pointing to all the different Christian sects and that Christians don't follow Christ but only follow Paul who had is own gospel in opposition to Christ.

    Quote: "...Muslims feel the same. They just aren't here to defend themselves and really, they shouldn't have to."
    Some are to busy attacking the Bible and Paul in other threads year after year answerbag and answermug. 



    EDIT: I don't really see what's so offensive. I wouldn't be offended if someone asked:
    "Which sect of Christianity is known as Peaceful? Are Catholics peaceful or Baptist or some other sect?
    I've heard some refer to Christianity as a peaceful religion."
    or
    "Which sect of Christianity is known as Peaceful? Are Mormons peaceful or Jehovah's Witnesses or some other sect?
    I've heard some refer to Christianity as a peaceful religion."


    This post was edited by texasescimo at March 11, 2018 4:22 PM MDT
      March 11, 2018 4:11 PM MDT
    0