FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Most peaceful religion





Coclus
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.
The Conspirator
Buddhism. It is the only peaceful religion. The others could be peaceful but they all have part that cause trouble.
Shiva
The only religion that's 100% peacefull is the one who undestands the other religions and accepts them.. and no religion does that!! The people belonging to the religion may understand other religions, but the religion it self doesn't..

So I think that only none believing people can live with the most peacefull religion Wink
mike1reynolds
Taoism!
S3nd K3ys
Islam. It's the religion of Peace. And Submission.
needra
peacfull isn't what religion is supposed to be. A lot of people have this view of this happy, quaint, little relgion where everyone is happy, nobody has problems, and the world is a nice place. Not.

The idea of a religion is to do whatever that religion decides to do, but there isn't going to be one that is just sooo happy.
hyhy
I would say that religion is not peacful from definition, nevertheless none!
The Conspirator
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Islam. It's the religion of Peace. And Submission.

Its not about what its supposed to be, its about what it is, Islam like Christianity has allot of people who do horrible things in its name and the name of God despite what it says in there holy books.
nam_siddharth
mike1reynolds wrote:
Taoism!


Are Tao people not Buddhists?
Revvion
i would say Buddhism aswell, its not total peace but thats no religion because humans are just animals who like to show off there superior fighting skills (not that most of us have any without guns).
The Czar
Coclus wrote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.


Islam was actually spread like this.
Me being the missionary and you being the unbeliever.

I would say:
Hey you there, convert now or I'll will roundhouse kick you to jail.

You would then (Mostly):
Nay, I shalt not convertee unto yee religion.

I would send you to jail and basically you would a) As a prisoner of war who is educated, teach the muslim children basic knowledge.

b) As a prisoner of war who is well-built, work, like build walls and such.

c) As a prisoner of war who is not special, will also work normally.

It wasn't spread with force, it just gave you two options. Join or Work until you have payed off your fine for not being a muslim.

This only happens during war ofcourse. They never kill people who don't want to be muslim but are willing to surrender.
Revvion
i think "The Czar" is right, the force you speak off is something people tink of now because of wars in the middle east, and terrorist acts.
kiranaghor
Buddhism seems to be a peaceful religion as it has stated in their teachings from the very beginning. It first stated about 'Ahimsa' i e non - violence.
IvyA
definately agree with you on that one
Buddhism is truly a peaceful religion.
I find mahayana buddhism to be particularly peaceful, as it stresses compassion for all beings.
bluedragon
Christianity is essentially peaceful, too!

All religions essentially are!

Think of all that Jesus said. Good stuff!

It's human fallability that is cause for war.
Panthrowzay
I have to say Jehovah's Witnesses

yeah make fun but have you ever seen a baptised witness do something wrong?
bluedragon
Panthrowzay wrote:
I have to say Jehovah's Witnesses

yeah make fun but have you ever seen a baptised witness do something wrong?


Knocking on my door at 7am on a sleepy Saturday morning is wrong in my book.
The Conspirator
nam_siddharth wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Taoism!


Are Tao people not Buddhists?

No, Taoism and Buddhism are two different things.
Juparis
Coclus wrote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.

I disagree with some of your reasoning:
Islam - Well, I don't know enough to argue against its "force"ful ways...
Christianity - You're using the actions of men to disregard the whole religion. I thought the questions was what do you think the most peaceful religion is, not which religion has the most peaceful followers. Christianity, in all of its ideology, seems to be a great contendor in peacefulness. But I'm sure many would see the banishment of evil as violence, so maybe it's not the #1 choice..
Jews - Again, you're using your misguided knowledge of Jews to disregard their whole religion. But I think it the same as Christianity--punishing the evil is too much for some to deal with.


I cannot say Buddhism is the most peaceful because of everything shiva mentioned--I agree, 100%!
simp
Buddhism. Specifically, Theravada Buddhism.
dfreeman616
that depends on a couple things. the first is if you mean what the religion would look like if lived out how it's intended. the second is what you mean by 'peace.' is peace simply the absent of conflict and violence, or something more? what i mean by that can be ilustrated by the hebrew word 'shalom.' i'm no hebrew scholar, but here's a little about this word. it's often translated as 'peace,' but when used in Jewish and Christian scriptures, it is far more than the absence of conflict. it means things as they should be. so when a Jew greats a Jew with 'shalom,' he is saying "may your life be how YHWH designed it to be', in effect, or how God designed life to be. this comes from the assumption that God is good and what he desinged is perfect.

given that, i would have to say Judeo-Christianity is the most 'shalom'-ful, despite the lack of humans living it out all the time.
Soulfire
It is my opinion that Buddhism isn't a religion, but a way of life. There's a difference to me, but might not to you.

At any rate, it's hard to have a peaceful religion, but the actions of some members of the religion should not mean that the religion itself is that way. All religion, ideally, is peaceful.

To me, Christianity is peaceful - I am at peace with God and peace with Jesus, that's just what works for me.

Now, you can say that "Yeah so and so Christian guy did so and so" and run your mouth, but like I said before, can the actions of a few people really equal the entire thing as a whole?

The actions of Muslim terrorists doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists.
sandeeptapradhan
All religion are peaceful....

Its we the human beings that make the religion worse..by bending the rules to our needs...

I think humanity should be the only religion that should exists for us..

Thats the only religion thats going to put us in to one ...


Sandeepta




Coclus wrote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.
The Conspirator
But the thing is, (as I've said before) its not what it should be its what it is.
Religions, philosophies or cultures are made by people, religions, philosophies or cultures are like people, actions speak louder than words. If that religion, philosophy or culture has a history of violence, no madder how peaceful the bases for it is, it is a violent religion, philosophy or culture.
Juparis
You might as well say that a toothbrush is a weapon. Regardless of what it's intended for, they're sharpended into knives in prison, so they must be lethal weapons. At least, according to your logic.

People are violent--not the religions. Saying a religion is violent because of a few stray followers takes away the definition of a religion in the first place! The original topic pertains to religions, not people. But if you'd like to carry it over to the followers, go right ahead. Just don't confuse the two, as it seems to be a trend.
nam_siddharth
The Conspirator wrote:
nam_siddharth wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Taoism!


Are Tao people not Buddhists?

No, Taoism and Buddhism are two different things.


Taoism and Buddism are two different things, I agree. But all taoists are Buddhists (there may me some exeptions), but all (most) Buddhists are not Taoist.
redace
I definitely agree with you even if I don´t believe in religions. The Christians used to kill for two thousands years, but the people who lead the warriors in to the battle were often just full of desire after power and money. I think that none of them really believe in God neither in another form of universal power. They were full of hatred and were the same like today politicians. These are the kind of people that will believe in everything, do everything, say everything and kill everybody just for the power and money. The type of chameleon people, with amorph soul, with the lost heart and tongue of the master of lies. Many religion are abused with this type of people, because where is religion there is also power..so this people are attracted to religion. If the power were somewhere else, for example, in the baking of bread, they will be definitily there. So many reilgions seems to be very drasticall and without mercy, but I think its only because of the type of people who are attracted to the religion. What do you think?
crimson_aria
I think the most peaceful religion by far is buddhism.
druidbloke
There are parts of the bible and quran you can easily describe as violent and not peaceful, parts about revenge and justice. Lot gave up his daughters but not sons to the perverted rapist mob and is still called "just", charming Surprised), god drowns everything that breaths air in the great flood because they've all been a bit naughty, god rains fire down on whole cities, all very peaceful. God ensures all living things (his creations) experience misery and death, god instructs the jews to kill everyone in the promised land, yes even children, and to show no pity, Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:5–6), could go on and on really, anyway thats the old testament, but still any religion based on that cannot surely claim to be inherently peaceful. Anyway druids arent faultless either they did use to sacrifice occasionly and use 3 different ways to kill the subject, nice, mind you at least the victim was willing usually.
bluedragon
Soulfire wrote:
It is my opinion that Buddhism isn't a religion, but a way of life. There's a difference to me, but might not to you.


Merriam-Webster Online wrote:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective


Religion is a way of life, to me.
sonam
All religions are propagating non-violence but what people doing behind this religions are something different!

Sonam
mabuhay
Do u mean to say, "what's the most peaceful major religion?" cause im sure there are probably new religions that are 100x more peaceful than Buddhism. You just have to write down a doctrine that is more skeptical of violence than any other. I wouldn't join it though because violence is tool of survival, which is more important to me than doctrine. A wiser religion would focus on when is the best time to use violence to protect the greater good and when is the best time to restrain yourself from using it.
Soulfire
All religion is peaceful, but that peace doesn't necessarily remain with all followers of the religion.
Ratman2050
The Czar wrote:
Coclus wrote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.


Islam was actually spread like this.
Me being the missionary and you being the unbeliever.

I would say:
Hey you there, convert now or I'll will roundhouse kick you to jail.

You would then (Mostly):
Nay, I shalt not convertee unto yee religion.

I would send you to jail and basically you would a) As a prisoner of war who is educated, teach the muslim children basic knowledge.

b) As a prisoner of war who is well-built, work, like build walls and such.

c) As a prisoner of war who is not special, will also work normally.

It wasn't spread with force, it just gave you two options. Join or Work until you have payed off your fine for not being a muslim.

This only happens during war ofcourse. They never kill people who don't want to be muslim but are willing to surrender.


I am muslim. Personally I think every religion has someone bad in it. Someone that just doesnt care. Not everybody can be as righteous as Jesus(Peace be with him), or Prophet Muhammad(S). These people were one out of many. As you have said Czar and Colculus, is not ethical. If you have ever read or known about Islam, you would think differently. I have never heard of Islamic People that come to your homes and ask you to believe in Islam. We spread Islam through friends and people we know, not just random people. Otherwise we tell publicly.
And as you said if you do not aquisce to Islam then we will kill you. This is very Haram as to say From our Holy Book the Quran clearly mentions; Islam is not to be forced upon anyone. Islam is a giving religion. If we ask someone to join. They may say yes. They may say No. It is not our judgement to believe in them to ALWAYS say Yes. And if they disincline, then we should be very humble towards them, for this is the way we should act. Not through brute. Let Allah(God) decide which is to choose what religion.


I would also like to say, in the times of when Islam Began, back in 500 A.D. In Suadi Arabi it is written in the Holy Book the Quran, that these were the Days of Jahilia. Arabic for Days of Ignorance. Many people did not accept Islam and Our Loved Prophets Teachings. They hurt our Prohpet(S) and threw malace towards him. This is one subliminal FACT and Supporting statement Which proves that Islamic Priests do not force people to join Islam.

I would like to add another mentioning. There are people"Terrorists" In fact that portray strict violence and judgement along with force to people. These are not Islamic ways. They claim to be Muslim these people, but in the mind the Real Muslims, we say that they are not Muslim, in fact they have nothing close to it. This is because they are spreading Islam the wrong way. And the hateful way. I say every Muslim is not a terrorist, but only to say that all terrorists are not muslims as well. Most people aboard 9/11 were of the Islamic Decent. These people have no right to claim them selves as Muslims. They are considered cruel people blinded by the Devils whispers. Killing is not an option, Amongst that, thousands of people will provide you a certain ticket out of Islam. Those terrorists may have been, Muslims before, but now, they arent.
Rhysige
Peaceful != Religion... its quite simple Smile

Every major conflict in the history of the Human race has had something to do with religion if its the outright purpouse (crusades) or just and undercurrent which drives everyone it is quite clear religion is behind the conflicts.

The ideas of religion are great.. however people become obsessed with religion to the point they believe that only their religion is right and only their way is perfect... this obviously causes conflict.
JoeFriday
Ratman's version of Islam is very different than the version I've studied.. in the version I'm aware of, infidels (non-muslims) have 3 choices: 1. accept islam and become a muslim, 2. do not become a muslim but pay annual dues, or 3. be killed.. of course, even if you pay the dues, you could potentially be killed by having your head hacked off in the same manner that Muhammed did to his own uncle for refusing to acknowledge him as a prophet of Allah.. you can see how much Islam has changed based on the recent beheadings by muslim terrorists

keep in mind that I don't think Islam is a religion at all, but is actually the world's largest cult, invented and propogated by a twisted man who married (and had sex with) girls as young as 8 years old.. he was ostracized by his own neighbors and when he gained some power he turned on them for his revenge

Islam is a 'religion' of submission.. first by muslims to Allah.. then by all non-muslims to the 'faithful'.. it is not a religion of peace by any stretch of the imagination

as for the Crusades.. that was Christian retaliation to 200 years of persecution of Christians at the hands of Muslims.. granted, the Christians went a little overboard in their reaction, but they were being slaughtered and subjected to slavery for generations prior to that.. it was by no means a case of the poor defenseless muslims living in peace and harmony until the Christians showed up.. it was the Muslims who started it all by conquering Jerusalem and killing thousands of Christians on sight
Ratman2050
JoeFriday wrote:
Ratman's version of Islam is very different than the version I've studied.. in the version I'm aware of, infidels (non-muslims) have 3 choices: 1. accept islam and become a muslim, 2. do not become a muslim but pay annual dues, or 3. be killed.. of course, even if you pay the dues, you could potentially be killed by having your head hacked off in the same manner that Muhammed did to his own uncle for refusing to acknowledge him as a prophet of Allah.. you can see how much Islam has changed based on the recent beheadings by muslim terrorists

keep in mind that I don't think Islam is a religion at all, but is actually the world's largest cult, invented and propogated by a twisted man who married (and had sex with) girls as young as 8 years old.. he was ostracized by his own neighbors and when he gained some power he turned on them for his revenge

Islam is a 'religion' of submission.. first by muslims to Allah.. then by all non-muslims to the 'faithful'.. it is not a religion of peace by any stretch of the imagination

as for the Crusades.. that was Christian retaliation to 200 years of persecution of Christians at the hands of Muslims.. granted, the Christians went a little overboard in their reaction, but they were being slaughtered and subjected to slavery for generations prior to that.. it was by no means a case of the poor defenseless muslims living in peace and harmony until the Christians showed up.. it was the Muslims who started it all by conquering Jerusalem and killing thousands of Christians on sight


This is the most bullcrap I have ever heard from a non believer. Lol. So wrong.
1. Accept Islam or pay dues? Who pays people taxes to not be in Islam. This is ridiculous
2. As I have said killing is against Islam and as well as every Religion, you cannot say Islam kills for faith. Then how am I a muslim?No one threatened me.

Muhammad (S) Peace be upon him's Uncle, Abu Talib, was a Nonbeliever. Yet he cared and respected his nephew. In the teachings I learn in my Sunday School, and My own MOTHER is my very teacher, taught me even though, Abu Talib, valued his nephew, he was a Kuffar(Non Beliver) was respected. It is said that Abu Talib, had a natural death in fact nothing like what you said. He was in the dessert for 3 years exiled for helping the prophet along with the Banu Hashim Tribe, from the Makkan City from Kuffars. Not hacked away by the prophet. Abu Talib, is not sure to be a Muslim later on in his life, nor Kuffar. In recordings it is not certain.

Terrorists on the other hand, as I said before were once Muslims, But when there killing began they are not thought as Muslims, and have done nothing for Islam, but cause hatred. Do you think anyone likes terrorists in their right mind? No one except themselves.

Next I would like to say that ISLAM is in fact a religion. Your opinion cannot deny the fact. That we believe in a God and Holy Book as our practice and guide. Muhammad (S) was not the inventor of Islam, In fact he wasnt even the first Muslim. He was the last prophet. So therefore it is not true of what you said.

Thirdly when he was pronounced the Prophet he was 40 years old. Another thing is as he got old he had several different wives. This is because he wanted many children not for pleasure. In fact one of his wives, did not give a single child. Also he did not marry 8 year old girls. That is an exaggeration. He was 40 and older when he married about 20-40 year old wives. He also had a wife that was older than him. So once again you are dissproven.

So next time. Please read, understand, and know of Islam before you post misconceptions of things of which you do not know about. This is very wrong and is not to be tolerated with.

Its shameful really. To insult another young child like me's religion. And then to uptold by the informer.
nam_siddharth
ratman2050 wrote:
This is the most bullcrap I have ever heard from a non believer. Lol. So wrong.
1. Accept Islam or pay dues? Who pays people taxes to not be in Islam. This is ridiculous


Do you not know about "Jizya taxes" payable by non-muslims to remain in their religion.

Quote:
In states ruled by Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزْية) is a per capita tax imposed on non-Muslim adult males, known as dhimmis.


I do not know, whether these taxes are still payable by minority in muslim countries, but it is true for Indian history. It was payable by non-muslims, in almost all muslim rule.

Qur'an 9:29 wrote:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
Ratman2050
nam_siddharth wrote:
ratman2050 wrote:
This is the most bullcrap I have ever heard from a non believer. Lol. So wrong.
1. Accept Islam or pay dues? Who pays people taxes to not be in Islam. This is ridiculous


Do you not know about "Jizya taxes" payable by non-muslims to remain in their religion.

Quote:
In states ruled by Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزْية) is a per capita tax imposed on non-Muslim adult males, known as dhimmis.


I do not know, whether these taxes are still payable by minority in muslim countries, but it is true for Indian history. It was payable by non-muslims, in almost all muslim rule.

Qur'an 9:29 wrote:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya


I thought he was talking about the present. Everythings happens in the past Siddarth.

And in the writing of the Qur'an it does not literally mean "FIGHT" those who do not believe. It means withstand from those.
JoeFriday
sorry Ratman.. but just because you say so doesn't mean I'm disproven at all.. in fact, you offer absolutely no evidence for what you 'know'

but another member has already shown an example of where you were wrong, so I don't feel the need to hammer away at you more.. I don't have anything personally against you.. but I do feel you're ignorant about your own religion.. yes, the Quran does advocate violence.. however, muslims make allowances for that by saying "it's not violence when it's done to glorify Allah" and other such nonesense.. that's the same as Bill Clinton's famous line "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

and yes, Muhammed did marry children as young as 8.. actually, she was 6 when they married, but he was gracious enough to wait 2 years until he consummated the marriage.. what a great prophet he was, eh?

it's a shame that so many muslims aren't aware of their own religion's doctrine.. as well as the history of its founders.. and using the excuse that you're young and therefore untouchable is not a good way to debate
Victoly
Coclus wrote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.


I believe that religion is personal. Thus the most peaceful religion is the religion of the most peaceful man.
Victoly
Soulfire wrote:
All religion is peaceful, but that peace doesn't necessarily remain with all followers of the religion.


I would have to disagree. Some religion most certainly preaches violence and hatred.
nam_siddharth
JoeFriday wrote:
and yes, Muhammed did marry children as young as 8.. actually, she was 6 when they married, but he was gracious enough to wait 2 years until he consummated the marriage.. what a great prophet he was, eh?


Her name was Aisha.
haak_heu
I think all religion are peaceful but the people which are said to be followers
(which are indeed not) are not peaceful.

All religions say for good things dont lie , dont kill any body , dont do fraud
but what the followers of religion do they do against that...

Jesus(peace be upon him ) was vey peaceful man ....what he said when some slaps your sheck
give him other .....

budha was also peaseful ....

islam ...well literally meaning of islam is peace ...

Muhammad (peace be upon him ) was peaceful man he did not done any fight without reason (self defance) he told about animal rights in that time when people where treated as animals


SELF DIFFANCE IS NOT TERROR IT IS RIGHT AND IT IS NOT BRAKING OF PEACE
JoeFriday
so killing small children in a Beslan school is self defense? ahh.. I'm glad we cleared that up

and flying planes into a skyscraper full of people going about their daily work schedule.. self defense.. yeah, I can almost see that

Islam.. the Religion Of Peace

list all the terrorist attacks in the past 10 years.. I'd venture to say that 99% of them were committed by muslims

perhaps the muslims are a little off track these days.. but as I've said before, I think they're just 'staying the course'.. Islam has always been a religion of force and subjugation, starting with Muhammed
The Czar
JoeFriday wrote:
Ratman's version of Islam is very different than the version I've studied.. in the version I'm aware of, infidels (non-muslims) have 3 choices: 1. accept islam and become a muslim, 2. do not become a muslim but pay annual dues, or 3. be killed.. of course, even if you pay the dues, you could potentially be killed by having your head hacked off in the same manner that Muhammed did to his own uncle for refusing to acknowledge him as a prophet of Allah.. you can see how much Islam has changed based on the recent beheadings by muslim terrorists

keep in mind that I don't think Islam is a religion at all, but is actually the world's largest cult, invented and propogated by a twisted man who married (and had sex with) girls as young as 8 years old.. he was ostracized by his own neighbors and when he gained some power he turned on them for his revenge

Islam is a 'religion' of submission.. first by muslims to Allah.. then by all non-muslims to the 'faithful'.. it is not a religion of peace by any stretch of the imagination

as for the Crusades.. that was Christian retaliation to 200 years of persecution of Christians at the hands of Muslims.. granted, the Christians went a little overboard in their reaction, but they were being slaughtered and subjected to slavery for generations prior to that.. it was by no means a case of the poor defenseless muslims living in peace and harmony until the Christians showed up.. it was the Muslims who started it all by conquering Jerusalem and killing thousands of Christians on sight


Are you talking about Mr. Abu Lahab? Ey ...

I never read those things. It may be a conspiracy to stop people from wanting to convert ...
Beslan Siege.
Russians sent in T-72s or T-80s that actually killed the children. Them Spetznases were also careless. Not Muslims.

Hey hey hey, I am not being forced to be a Muslim. I just chose not to convert to other religions that could get me a place under.
The Conspirator
JoeFriday wrote:
and yes, Muhammed did marry children as young as 8.. actually, she was 6 when they married, but he was gracious enough to wait 2 years until he consummated the marriage.. what a great prophet he was, eh?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage
Quote:
The age of Aisha at marriage is an unsettled issue, and the subject of increasing attention in recent years. There are several hadiths (said to have been narrated by Aisha herself) which state she was six or seven years old when betrothed and nine years old when married or when the marriage was consummated, but other traditional material (hadith, sira, etc.) suggests that Aisha may have been anywhere from twelve to nineteen years old when she married. It is possible that she was eight or nine years of age (or older) when a deal was made for marriage, but that the marraige did not actually take place until four years later.


Arranged marriages were common back then. Marriages were often arranged when the person to be wed was a child and girls where could marry at 13 and 14 years old.
JoeFriday
The Czar wrote:
Beslan Siege.
Russians sent in T-72s or T-80s that actually killed the children. Them Spetznases were also careless. Not Muslims.

that's bullsh*t on two levels.. first of all, the muslims instigated the whole siege by taking over 1200 people (mostly children) hostage at gunpoint

stories abound of children being forced to drink their own urine and eat flowers off the teachers' desks because they were denied food and water for 3 days.. and when one child asked for a glass of water, he was bayoneted in the stomach by his captor

then there are the stories of the teenage girls being raped on video in the same room

as the russians stormed the school to end the atrocities, the muslim gunmen shot the escaping children in the back

tell me there's any sort of person other than a sick psychopath who would do something like that
The Conspirator
JoeFriday: Why do people like you insist on demonizing Islam? Are you aware of the atrocity's committed by Christens, Jews and Hindus? Do you judge the whole of Christianity based on the crusades, the inquisition, the oppression of many culture and people in the name of Christianity and Pat Robertson?

Instead of blaming the religion, look at the circumstances that lead up to the currant situation's.
JoeFriday
because I don't believe Islam is a true religion.. as I said in a previous post, I think it's the world's largest cult, run by crazies

but hey, that's just my opinion.. I'm not claiming to know for sure

and yep, I'm aware of the atrocities committed by Christians, Jews and Hindus.. but this particular discussion veered onto the topic of Islam being so peaceful and I disputed that, based on facts

I never said Christianity was the most peaceful religion, did I? But I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson has never hacked anyone's head off, or even advocated doing so

yet, Islam does actually advocate that very thing.. so I'm not demonizing Islam.. I'm just pointing out the violence inherent in the religion
The Czar
Oooo ... See ... Around 300 children died at Beslan. Discovery channel never said anything about bayoneted children. It did however say that the Russian Military assaulted the school with tanks and the first one starting it was a confused grenadier. Or was he really aware ... Its a conspiracy ... It will never be known like who really killed JFK??
mike1reynolds
The fact that large numbers of children were shot in the back was reported all across the American and European media. But instead you focus on the isolated bayoneting reference. How convenient.

It will never be known? What a manipulative argument. No one who isn't trying to defeend terrorists have any uncertainty about it.

Why are you trying to defend terrorist? The Sufis in Chechnia don’t, the exiled government condemned the attack on the school in no uncertain terms.

The Qur’an is a book of religious bigotry that accuses most Jews and Christians of trying to make Muslims disbelieve for dishonest reasons, does it not?
The Czar
What!? I don't defend terrorists. I am only defending my religion. The terrorists aren't Muslims. For me atleast. If they were Muslims ... They wouldn't have killed or taken children hostage. Obvious that they aren't Muslims who wanted people to think they were Muslims in order to bring bad reputation to Islam. They could be Muslims that strayed too far. The footage of the Grenadier was cool ... Is that truly in the Qur'an?

I did read however that Muslims shant make friends or believe other non-muslims ey ... What I am actually doing here huh? Should I believe you?
afgdomain
Quote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.


I think when you say Islam is spread by force, perhaps you are referring to the terrorist attacks? That's pretty harsh. I myself is a stubborn science-believer, but do you know some of the medieval crusaders actually fought for money, not their religion? Then you can hardly call Christianity violent, because it is simply not the reason why some men decide to join the war. Do you know Islam is the second largest religion in the world? And how many terrorists are there? Every religion have their 'bad guys' who commit crime under the name of their god, but they alone does not change the whole group. My classmates and I have just undergone detailed study of the religion Islam and we learned that many Muslim missionaries actually spread their religion through trade, not force. So my opinion is that there is no 'most peaceful' religion. There's only people who doesn't know what's good for humanity and use their religion as an excuse for their crimes.
The Conspirator
JoeFriday wrote:
because I don't believe Islam is a true religion.. as I said in a previous post, I think it's the world's largest cult, run by crazies

but hey, that's just my opinion.. I'm not claiming to know for sure

and yep, I'm aware of the atrocities committed by Christians, Jews and Hindus.. but this particular discussion veered onto the topic of Islam being so peaceful and I disputed that, based on facts

I never said Christianity was the most peaceful religion, did I? But I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson has never hacked anyone's head off, or even advocated doing so

yet, Islam does actually advocate that very thing.. so I'm not demonizing Islam.. I'm just pointing out the violence inherent in the religion

1. Why is Islam a cult? If Islam is a cult than so is Christianity and Judaism.
2. Have you read the bible? Theres more violence in the name of God than in the Qu'ron. Its only when people look only at the parts that seem to justify violence dose it become bad but thats not the Qu'ron as a whole.
3. Don't genres, Islam is a very large and very diverse religion, no one group, version, belief represents Islam as a whole.
ranciel
By far, I would agree it has to be Buddhism since I don't think it has fought any wars in its name.

The very basis for Buddhism is inherently peace of mind. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Razz I'm not Buddhist myself (I'm Catholic), but I do have a father who embraces Buddhism because of this peace of mind he yearns for. To a certain extent, I agree with Soulfire that Buddhism is not a religion, but a way of life and a belief in the goodness of all mankind. Buddha isn't God. Buddhists do not call Buddha their God or Shen in Chinese. He is simply an Indian prince (still very much human) who has attained divinity through meditation and good work. I think every staunch Buddhist's goal in life is to follow in the footsteps of Buddha to attain divinity. They believe anyone can. Once again, correct me if I'm wrong.

This basis of Buddhism is then pretty different from other religions such as Christianity and Islam, where one ultimate God is omnipresent and omnipotent. One can argue that Jesus Christ Himself is human just like Buddha. But let us not forget Jesus is the Son of God, who was with God in heaven, but was given to mankind as the key to eternal life.

However the foundation of all religions is to attain peace of mind, enjoy true happiness and to love our neighbours, isn't it? But essentially, man is the perpetrator of all wars fought in the name of religion and of God Himself. One cannot judge the goodness of a religion by how peaceful it is or if it has fought any religious wars. This does not reflect the goodness of religion at all. All religions are inherently good, I must stress. We should keep in mind that religion is man-made, but God isn't. He is divine, if you believe in Him that is.

But that's just me. Just my two cents' worth. Smile
JoeFriday
The Conspirator wrote:
1. Why is Islam a cult? If Islam is a cult than so is Christianity and Judaism.
2. Have you read the bible? Theres more violence in the name of God than in the Qu'ron. Its only when people look only at the parts that seem to justify violence dose it become bad but thats not the Qu'ron as a whole.
3. Don't genres, Islam is a very large and very diverse religion, no one group, version, belief represents Islam as a whole.


1. because I believe Muhammed claimed to be the voice of God, but was actually a con-man.. it's more likely that he was an epileptic who had 'visions', but later used his influence to manipulate (and kill) people.. there's not much difference between him and Jim Jones from Jonestown, IMO.. was the religion that Jim Jones advocating anything more than a cult? uh huh

to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that anything Muhammed said was factual or the word of God.. while there is plenty of evidence that the Bible is based on real events.. of course the 'miracles' have to be taken on faith, but they are more than just stories or laws that are decreed in order to make the leader of that faith more comfortable.. whereas about 80% of the Quran is laws that Muhammed said God decreed right at a time when it helps out Muhammed's lifestyle.. how convenient.. then there is also the fact that there are major contradictions in between various sections of the Quran.. how could that be if it's the word of God??

oh, and what about the Satanic Verses? you remember those.. the early parts of the Quran where Muhammed tried to get the 'people of the book' (jews and christians) to join together with him.. when they laughed at him and called him a fake, he changed his tune and decided it would be jihad against them for all eternity.. he wasn't exactly the forgive and forget kind of guy, it seems.. so what could he do about those early verses of the Quran where he urged his followers to accept the jews and christians? well the obvious answer is to claim insanity.. which he did, in a way.. he claimed that those verses were actually dictated to him by Satan, and not by God.. wow, if only that would have worked for Son of Sam! but to this day, those verses (that came from Muhammed himself) are now banned in all of Islam.. and death be to anyone who publishes them.. gee, this doesn't sound cultish at all, does it?

2. yep, I've read the Bible.. you're absolutely right about there being a lot of violence.. God was a fairly vengeful being in His early days.. but that changed dramatically when Moses showed up.. He started to soften up.. and was pretty mellow when He sent Jesus down to give us a lifeline.. the Bible no longer advocates violence in any way.. the Quran does

3. muslims are a diverse group.. Islam is not.. the core of Islam is the same now as it was centuries ago.. it oppresses women in ways that no other society does.. Islam is totally intolerant of other religions, too.. perhaps liberal muslims are (and my comments have nothing to do with individuals), but Islam doesn't tolerate diversity

at least that's how I see it
HoboPelican
Lots of anger here in discussing the most peaceful religion... a little ironic.

I skimmed the posts so I missed these being posted, forgive me.

Buddhism maybe a god choice, not sure

Consider The Bahá’í Faith or The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).

I don't think you can find a group less violent than the Quakers.
The Conspirator
Quote:
1. because I believe Muhammed claimed to be the voice of God, but was actually a con-man.. it's more likely that he was an epileptic who had 'visions', but later used his influence to manipulate (and kill) people.. there's not much difference between him and Jim Jones from Jonestown, IMO.. was the religion that Jim Jones advocating anything more than a cult? uh huh

So a religion that come from a person who claimed to here the voice of god is a cult but a religion that says a man was burn of a virgin, died and was then came back to life and was God is not?
There is very little evidence to support most of the bible. There isn't even evidence out side the bible of the existence of Jesus from the time of Jesus.
Thats hypacridical.
Quote:
the Quran does

Only when you take certain passages by them selves, but if you look at the Qu'ran as a whole it dose only in certain circumstances.
Quote:
muslims are a diverse group.. Islam is not.

Islam is a religion, religions are made by people. If the people are diverse, the religion is diverse.
The Czar
JoeFriday ... Can your prophet split the moon ... with his bare hands?
Thats what people say about Muhammad. What about Jesus? Is he not like Muhammad?
mike1reynolds
ranciel wrote:
Buddha isn't God. Buddhists do not call Buddha their God or Shen in Chinese.
This is not entirely true, the Tibetan Buddists have a concept identical to the Trinity. The Trikaya, or three bodies of God, correspond precisely to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
JoeFriday
The Conspirator wrote:
Islam is a religion, religions are made by people. If the people are diverse, the religion is diverse.


sure.. in the same way that if a prison is built by free people, it is therefore a place of freedom Rolling Eyes

no.. the reality is that Islam has VERY rigid rules.. it is not diverse at all.. the people who claim to be muslims might be diverse, but the religion is not.. your claim might be that because Islam will accept any race, it is diverse.. but the religion itself does not allow diverse lifestyles or thoughts
HoboPelican
Im not going argue Islam here, doesnt seem like the right thread. As to the most peaceful religion being Buddhism, let me just post this.
Quote:
Buddhist monasteries were also large landholders, and they were expanding in size as Buddhist temples were expanding in wealth. Buddhist estates had their own armies - armed monks called acuso. And occasionally they fought against each other, against some other expanding estate, or against the government in Kyoto.
Japan, Buddhism and Warlords
Their history has not been comletely benign.

I still hold the Bahá’í, the Quakers and as someone else said, the Jevoah's Witnesses as being better candidates for most peaceful

Anyone care to discuss the topic?
nam_siddharth
HoboPelican wrote:
Im not going argue Islam here, doesnt seem like the right thread. As to the most peaceful religion being Buddhism, let me just post this.
Quote:
Buddhist monasteries were also large landholders, and they were expanding in size as Buddhist temples were expanding in wealth. Buddhist estates had their own armies - armed monks called acuso. And occasionally they fought against each other, against some other expanding estate, or against the government in Kyoto.
Japan, Buddhism and Warlords
Their history has not been comletely benign.

Anyone care to discuss the topic?


But those wars were not for religion. Those wars were not to force Buddhism on non-buddhists. Will you accuse buddhism for Japan being involved in 2nd world war, because Japan is a buddhist country? Japan also attacked China (another buddhist country), but is was not for religion, was it?

On the other hand, Islam openely advocate Jihad, war against non-muslims. The Crusades of Christians were for religion.

Buddhists have also fight many wars, to protect themselves or to expand there empire. But they have never fought wars on name of religion.
Mannix
If we are talking about the teachings of the religions, I'd have to go with christianity. Love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, forgive those who trespass against you. It's really all about love and forgiveness.
ralphbefree
Most peaceful religion? what an interesting topic! What is Peace? Without Conflict? Harmony with All? What religion advocates absolute acceptance and integration with All? Buddhusim perhaps advocates that ideal in the journey of the soul to attain a enlightenment. Taoism advocates the ideal that an absolute Harmony exists amonst All Things. Yet I am unsure if these two religions have tolerance for other religions. If not then complete Harmony cannot exist and therefore neither can absolute peace.

The Sadhus adhere to an ideal that advocates Harmony with All. In fact that is all that the Saduhs do. These people after living fulfilling lives reject everything--right down to the shirt on thier backs, and live a life to obtain enlightenment: Absolute Peace.
http://www.adolphus.nl/sadhus/
HoboPelican
nam_siddharth wrote:

But those wars were not for religion. Those wars were not to force Buddhism on non-buddhists. Will you accuse buddhism for Japan being involved in 2nd world war, because Japan is a buddhist country? Japan also attacked China (another buddhist country), but is was not for religion, was it?

On the other hand, Islam openely advocate Jihad, war against non-muslims. The Crusades of Christians were for religion.

Buddhists have also fight many wars, to protect themselves or to expand there empire. But they have never fought wars on name of religion.


Sorry, I'm not accusing anyone or anything. The topic was the about most peaceful religion. Buddhism was being held up as a contender and I was just pointing out that while in general they are a peaceful religion, they do fight. Quakers on the other hand do not. As far as I am aware, they are not allowed to fight. The are not drafted and are listed as Conscientious Objectors. I think that is true with the other 2 religions I mentioned. It seems that religions that do not allow fighting would be considered more peaceful than one that simply tries to avoid it.
nam_siddharth
ralphbefree wrote:
Most peaceful religion? what an interesting topic! What is Peace? Without Conflict? Harmony with All? What religion advocates absolute acceptance and integration with All? Buddhusim perhaps advocates that ideal in the journey of the soul to attain a enlightenment. Taoism advocates the ideal that an absolute Harmony exists amonst All Things. Yet I am unsure if these two religions have tolerance for other religions. If not then complete Harmony cannot exist and therefore neither can absolute peace.

The Sadhus adhere to an ideal that advocates Harmony with All. In fact that is all that the Saduhs do. These people after living fulfilling lives reject everything--right down to the shirt on thier backs, and live a life to obtain enlightenment: Absolute Peace.
http://www.adolphus.nl/sadhus/


May I know, what is religion of those Sadhus? It si neccessory to know, because it is a topic on religion. If religion of those Sadhus is hinduism, then are you sure Hinduism is a religion of peace? Question
dfreeman616
The Conspirator wrote:

There is very little evidence to support most of the bible. There isn't even evidence out side the bible of the existence of Jesus from the time of Jesus.
Thats hypacridical.


Acctualy, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the Bible in numerous ways. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus, who worked for the Roman empire, wrote about Christians within about 15-20 years of the time Jesus is believed to be crucified. that's hardly time for a legand to be made. furthermore, there is considerable acrhlogical evidence and other written accounts that back the Bible.
linexpert
Religions were designed for peace but how people acted to spread them weren't always peaceful. So you can't say what religion is most peaceful you should say which people acted the most peacefully to spread the religion. I do agree and think that buddhism is porblably the most peacefully spread. Very Happy
anniesue21
I'm new to the forum and I thought this was an interesting topic to post on. There are a few "peaceful" religions out there. Buddists, are certainly one of my top 2 on the "Peaceful" list. the other is what I am. I am a Pagan, more specifically Wiccan. It is in our Rede to "Harm None" and most of us, want to live in harmony with nature, and each other. Like I said earlier, Why can't we all just get along? Question
AnnieSue
haak_heu
Coclus wrote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.


i request author to put apoll and let see which is the most peaceful religion chosed by people ?
sonna3 el hayet
May be that Islam nowadays is not well seen.
But let's see in the history.
I learned that even if The PROPHET made some wars, there were very little dead people and the the wars were always between muslims and colonialist people there and not with the original habitants.
Let's look at the wars made in the name of christianism in America.
I wonder always where are the original peoples of america before the arrival of christians??? Was it sahara in america befor christophe colombus???

At the same way, jewich people lived for centuries between muslims whithout getting killed like in the second world war.

They left theese countries when it became difficult even for muslims.
alja
I dont believe in religion, but I do believe in God, Allah, Buddha... or however you want to call him (her, it?). ...
religion mostly forbids something... but there is nothing what is forbidden... you just need to look inside you and if there is something which is "wrong"... or better which goes against nature.. you will know, so you dont actually need any religion, priest or rabby ... to tell you what to do and what not to do.

so.. I do believe in God, in meditation, in our soul... but religion... no!
But again... everyone can choose... and if people feel they need to be a member of any kind of religion, its fine for me too... everybody has to find those things out by themselves... and whats "right" for me, does not necessarily be "right" for you (no right or wrong exists, just depends who is looking at the things, one thing can be right for me, but wrong for you, so whats right than anyway)... okay... enough talk... I could go on with this.. but dont have that much time
claymoreteddy
nam_siddharth wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
nam_siddharth wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Taoism!


Are Tao people not Buddhists?

No, Taoism and Buddhism are two different things.


Taoism and Buddism are two different things, I agree. But all taoists are Buddhists (there may me some exeptions), but all (most) Buddhists are not Taoist.


Not quite sure how you arrived at that one, as to the best of my knowledge, Taoism predates Buddhism by some time. So saying that all Taoists are Buddhists would be odd. The only way they might be related is when the first Buddhists(originating in India) in China used Tauist terminology to explain how they saw the Tao as the way to Nirvana.
Soulfire
Again, I'd like to point out that all religion is peaceful - it's the people who follow it who shatter that peace that we try to obtain. The people who falsely use religion to justify unjust actions.
sujan
in my view
buddism is the peaceful religion
this is due to that it spreads peace and preaches peace
haak_heu
JoeFriday wrote:
so killing small children in a Beslan school is self defense? ahh.. I'm glad we cleared that up

and flying planes into a skyscraper full of people going about their daily work schedule.. self defense.. yeah, I can almost see that

Islam.. the Religion Of Peace

list all the terrorist attacks in the past 10 years.. I'd venture to say that 99% of them were committed by muslims

perhaps the muslims are a little off track these days.. but as I've said before, I think they're just 'staying the course'.. Islam has always been a religion of force and subjugation, starting with Muhammed


well i think you did not read my post and only saw that islam and Muhamad peace be upon hime is peace ful man read complete post and than reply

follower of islam are not following islam properly and niether other religion other wise they all are peaceful

i think you are more harsh to islam .
haak_heu
JoeFriday wrote:


sure.. in the same way that if a prison is built by free people, it is therefore a place of freedom Rolling Eyes

no.. the reality is that Islam has VERY rigid rules.. it is not diverse at all.. the people who claim to be muslims might be diverse, but the religion is not.. your claim might be that because Islam will accept any race, it is diverse.. but the religion itself does not allow diverse lifestyles or thoughts


religion are not regid they have alot flexibility so that all people follow them if you say that i quote which you say is regid and you will not step back from who will talk and argue you and believe on your quote
same is to religions if they are rigid than people will not accept them and follow them , than why is islam second largest religion and fastest spreading religion in the world

you have problum with islam , other thing post is not for that which religion is
terrorist and why ? it is which religion is peaceful , so give arguement to prove any religion peace ful or if you argue that islam is not than which one is tell it too
haak_heu
HoboPelican wrote:
Im not going argue Islam here, doesnt seem like the right thread. As to the most peaceful religion being Buddhism, let me just post this.
Quote:
Buddhist monasteries were also large landholders, and they were expanding in size as Buddhist temples were expanding in wealth. Buddhist estates had their own armies - armed monks called acuso. And occasionally they fought against each other, against some other expanding estate, or against the government in Kyoto.
Japan, Buddhism and Warlords
Their history has not been comletely benign.

I still hold the Bahá’í, the Quakers and as someone else said, the Jevoah's Witnesses as being better candidates for most peaceful

Anyone care to discuss the topic?



these wars were fought for there Kingdom or the leadership but not for religion becaue budhist fought with budhist not religous clash was there

budhisim is one of the peaceful religions

i again say all religion say to do good and dont fight live peace fully it is belivers or followers who want to rule and they make religion to be like that ...as we see now all are fighting
HoboPelican
haak_heu wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:
Im not going argue Islam here, doesnt seem like the right thread. As to the most peaceful religion being Buddhism, let me just post this.
Quote:
Buddhist monasteries were also large landholders, and they were expanding in size as Buddhist temples were expanding in wealth. Buddhist estates had their own armies - armed monks called acuso. And occasionally they fought against each other, against some other expanding estate, or against the government in Kyoto.
Japan, Buddhism and Warlords
Their history has not been comletely benign.

I still hold the Bahá’í, the Quakers and as someone else said, the Jevoah's Witnesses as being better candidates for most peaceful

Anyone care to discuss the topic?



these wars were fought for there Kingdom or the leadership but not for religion becaue budhist fought with budhist not religous clash was there

budhisim is one of the peaceful religions

i again say all religion say to do good and dont fight live peace fully it is belivers or followers who want to rule and they make religion to be like that ...as we see now all are fighting



I don't disagree at all. In fact, of all the major religons, I would say it's practioners are the most peaceful. But the questions was what is the most peaceful. Don't you think those that do not allow fighting at all should be condsidered more peaceful than one that allows fighting in self-defense of land?

This disscussion gives me the feeling that people are defending their own religions more than actually looking for the most peaceful one.
palavra
http://www.rumiforum.org/
nam_siddharth
mike1reynolds wrote:
ranciel wrote:
Buddha isn't God. Buddhists do not call Buddha their God or Shen in Chinese.
This is not entirely true, the Tibetan Buddists have a concept identical to the Trinity. The Trikaya, or three bodies of God, correspond precisely to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


But Buddha has never claimed that he is God or he is messanger of God or he has blood relations with God. He has denied the existance of god.

Buddha's thought on God
Quote:
1. If God is indeed the creator of all living things, then all things here should submit to His power unquestioningly. Like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can there be an opportunity for any one to practice virtue?

2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from Him.

3. If it is not so, then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.

4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.

5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?

6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.

7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.
Ratman2050
Muhammad never murdered anyone as Joe has stated.
If you can give proof to me that he killed someone on purpose, then I will believe you. He is also not a con man. He was not God. He was a prophet. He had no power of God, he was just a man. In Islam it is very wrong to appoint yourself with Gods Power. No one on Earth has power of God's. Muhammad solely was a gateway of which God spent his power down to Earth to teach the people of his marvel.
nam_siddharth
The Czar wrote:
JoeFriday ... Can your prophet split the moon ... with his bare hands?
Thats what people say about Muhammad. What about Jesus? Is he not like Muhammad?

Does Muhammada really did so? Even if he did, what it has to do with being Islam peaceful. It only show the destructiveness of Muhhammada, not peacefullness.
Marston
bluedragon wrote:
Christianity is essentially peaceful, too!

All religions essentially are!

Think of all that Jesus said. Good stuff!

It's human fallability that is cause for war.
Haven't you ever heard of the Crusades? Although I do agree with you about all religions being essentially peaceful, Christians (in particular the Vatican) haven't always been the most peaceful group of people.
cormac
please correct me if Im wrong but i'm pretty sure that buddhism was the religious bulwark that forced taoism into submission in japan.

I think Jainism is exceedingly peaceful.

Many jains wear cotton masks over their mouths and dust off chairs before sitting to avoid harming any micro-organisms. A little extreme I think but still a lovely sentiment.
paul_indo
I'll go for Buddhism, the most violent is Islam.
deanhills
I don't believe religion is responsible for peace. People are the ones responsible for making war or peace. Religion is a man made tool, not an end in itself. Religion can be used to make war as well as peace.
sonam
I was meet lot of people from different religions (hindu, muslim, buddist, chatolic) and visit lot of countries (India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malesia, all Europe, etc.) and on this way I found the buddist are open mind, can discuss about differences and can accept your religion. Other religions are more close and don't want to accept your religion like something good for you. Of course, maybe is there fanatic buddist too, but I didn't sow any one.

Sonam
chatrack
I do agree that Buddhism stand for peace of man kind. King Ashoka was a follower
of this after the War at kalinga enlighted by its Blessfull ideas.
deanhills
Buddhism does have peace written into it, but so have most religions. It usually are the people who make or break the peace. Not the religion. Religion can be used both ways by people depending on what they wish to have, i.e. war or peace. Islam for example has peace written in it, however a small minority of its followers like to use it as a tool to create terror on others. Humans seem to always have a greater interest in the dramatic, such as terror and war, rather than in peace, that can be dull and boring.
mhamad84
well i bet each one would rather write his religion as an answer Very Happy
what i know for sure, that Islam confirming the message of Jesus and Moses. those religions have the same basics.
i believe peace has to come from people themselves.
nam_siddharth
mhamad84 wrote:
well i bet each one would rather write his religion as an answer Very Happy

i believe peace has to come from people themselves.


So you think most posters are Buddhists here? I bet it is not true.
Tommyfromneverland
Buddhism is the most peaceful religion in theory and in reality.
Islam is the most violence in theory and in reality. Those terorists are not extrimists or fundamentalist. They just follow what the quran (the satanic holy book) says, so you can't blame them.

Christianity has many violence verses especially in the old testament although I agree Jesus spread peaceful teaching. In reality million of christians even the priests did many contrary things. Remember when the European conquered the american continent? They slaughtered millions of native central and south american just for the sake of gold and what did the priests do? Instead of preventing the killing from happening, they came to the natives and offered Christianity and tried to "civilize" them (who were the barbarians anyway). In the north, things were slightly better. The conquerer at least more civilized than the Spanish. They didn't create a killing field (although they did kill many Indians); they just robbed the Indians and drove them away (later the Indians were "saved" in the reservations). What did the priests do? Like their compatriots in the south, they came to civilize the Indians and converted them into Christians and did nothing to prevent the white people from stealing the Indians' properties. Of course they did some good thing to the Indians much later (not much compare to the destructions).
The same thing happend in Australia, China (the priest did nothing to stop the English from forcing the Chinese to open their door form opium). Of course the white people had overwhelming fire power (guns) to fight the sword and arrows of the color people.
The worst I think happend in Congo (Africa). They cut the hands of those who refused to become slaves, tortured, raped, and finally put the africans to death. And don't forget the slavery and later the apartheid in Ameica. A lot of priests did the church services not to serve their god and their people but to enrich themselves.

You can't find any content in Tripitaka (The Buddhist Holy Book) which refer to violence. And there is no war ever waged in the name of Buddhism. Nor its people and monks commit genocide (although I agree some Buddhist commit crimes but not as many as the muslims or chirstians in comparison to their populations).

For Jewish, their holy book is almost the same as the Old Testament (it contains some violence). In reality, although they are the victims in WWII they are now the nazi in the middle east.

Hinduism came second after the Buddhism.

I make this comparison for the major religions only. I believe there are many peaceful religions in this world but they are minorities such as Jainism and Quaker.

Beside being the most peaceful religion, it is the closest religion to science.
It supports the big bang and the evolution theories (it is in the Tripitaka); it isn't like the story of god create the earth in six days. or the story of Noah, Moses, etc (for me these stories are no different from the stories of cinderella and sleeping beauty).
Bikerman
There are plenty examples of Buddhist violence.
Japan, at the time of the second world war, had many Buddhists who actively supported, encouraged and participated in the war and many atrocities that followed.
http://vdo.palungjit.com/video/408727/Buddhism-and-Violence-Japan-in-WWII
awahab
No matter how people try to malign; Islam is here to prevail. No religion on the face of earth covers "Man"s life on life earth in great detail and respect. If everyone on earth had to follow the teachings of Islam you will see a peaceful world throughout. It is a complete, foolproof solution for peaceful living. Keep your mind open and think then you will realize the beauty of Islam.

Regards,
awahab.
Bikerman
It is not foolproof - look around.
And please don't use the no true scotsman fallacy (ie don't say 'they are not proper muslims').
awahab
To me Buddhism cannot be considered as a religion at all in the first place (I will debate about other religion in a different post though). It's all about meditation and brining peace and tranquility to one's own self (that's what the claim is - I refute that too)... To define anything as a religion we have to go it's sciptures and see what it has to offer to humanity as a whole. The solutions to man's day to day problems.

Bottomline: Buddhism is not a religion
awahab
Chris:

Anybody is identified and quoted according to the religion/the way of life he follows. If you are a Christian unless until you follow your scriptures you CANNOT be a true Christian, well you could be a Christian by name and by name only. I hope this point is clear.

Coming back to Islam: I would rather say that they are not following Islam in its true sense, if the "so called muslims" don't practice Islam then he does not qualify for being a muslim. Unless you follow the fundamentals of Islam one cannot call him a muslim. A muslim has distinctive qualities. Sorry to say the muslim you see today in your neighbourhood or which media propogates is not the kind of muslim which our scriptures talk about.

I you have specific topic to discuss about I can (with my limited knowledge) put some light on and clear some misconception of yours.

As for the FoolProof: As I said before NO RELIGION ON THE FACE OF EARTH has a solution to MAN'S PROBLEM except ISLAM.
Bikerman
awahab wrote:
Chris:

Anybody is identified and quoted according to the religion/the way of life he follows. If you are a Christian unless until you follow your scriptures you CANNOT be a true Christian, well you could be a Christian by name and by name only. I hope this point is clear.
No, not at all clear.
Quote:
Coming back to Islam: I would rather say that they are not following Islam in its true sense, if the "so called muslims" don't practice Islam then he does not qualify for being a muslim. Unless you follow the fundamentals of Islam one cannot call him a muslim. A muslim has distinctive qualities. Sorry to say the muslim you see today in your neighbourhood or which media propogates is not the kind of muslim which our scriptures talk about.
I have the quran so I know what is in it, and, just like the bible, it is open to various interpretations. It is perfectly possible to find justification for the terrorist acts in the Quran and it is equally easy to find interpretations which condemn it. When you talk about 'true sense' what you really mean is 'my sense'. Catholics and Protestants share the same scriptute but they believe different things and you wouldn't suggest their either Catholics or Protestants are not real Christians. The fact is that under Wahhabism terrorist activity not only can be justified with reference to the Quran, it is justified in that manner. So unless you are saying that Wahhabism is not 'real' Islam (and then I would wish to know with what authority) then you cannot say that the islamic terrorist is not a true muslim - you don't have that authority.
Quote:
As for the FoolProof: As I said before NO RELIGION ON THE FACE OF EARTH has a solution to MAN'S PROBLEM except ISLAM.
Yes, and I say Islam is NOT foolproof and doesn't have the answer - as is clearly visible in ANY Islamic state.
awahab
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
No, not at all clear.
What is the factor which decides one is a Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist? Please define your understanding! Just by saying I believe in Jesus, does not make you a Christian unless you following his teachings. The same goes for all religions.


Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I have the quran so I know what is in it, and, just like the bible, it is open to various interpretations. It is perfectly possible to find justification for the terrorist acts in the Quran and it is equally easy to find interpretations which condemn it. When you talk about 'true sense' what you really mean is 'my sense'.
If you read things relating to the context you will not fall in the danger of wrong interpretations. You cannot "PERFECTLY JUSTIFY" terrorist acts from any interpretations of the Quran. Actually is condemned through and through in the whole of Quran.

What makes sense to you might not make sense to me; what I meant by "TRUE SENSE" is the teaching of Islams in it's truest sense, that is to follow the Quran and Sunnah of the prophet. Lot of things are CRYSTAL clear. Like to believe there is Only One True God; Be dutiful to your parents, Dont indulge in adultery; Don't indulge in adultery; and the list goes on and on


Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Catholics and Protestants share the same scriptute but they believe different things and you wouldn't suggest their either Catholics or Protestants are not real Christians. The fact is that under Wahhabism terrorist activity not only can be justified with reference to the Quran, it is justified in that manner. So unless you are saying that Wahhabism is not 'real' Islam (and then I would wish to know with what authority) then you cannot say that the islamic terrorist is not a true muslim - you don't have that authority.
First of all Islam came for unity; there is nothing called WAHHABISM in Islam. For the sake of argument let us assume they exist, they too cannot prove "TERRORISM" from the Quran or the SUNNAH. Unless we get are getting here the wrong meaning of TERRORISM. If you say TERRORISM is to kill innocent people then definitely ISLAM does not support it whether from the QURAN, Sunnah or any ...ISM. Islam is all about unity; you claim you have Quran if so go to Chapter 49 verse no. 13 which shuns any division. If you notice that is addressed to the whole of mankind not just muslim (here you cannot misinterpret, or come with more than one meaning; It is clear).
And on the Authority of the Quran Chapter 5 verse number 32, there is nobody called "Islamic Terrorist" or "Muslim Terrorist".


Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Yes, and I say Islam is NOT foolproof and doesn't have the answer - as is clearly visible in ANY Islamic state.
The state of the muslim world as you see today is due to the adandoning of the Quran and Sunnah. I agree with you to the point that no visibility of true Islamic Shariah which came to us as blessings and we have abandoned it. For this we have to blame ourselves and not anybody else. But if you take the teachings of Islam at face value and implement you are bound to be successful and live with peace.
Bikerman
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
No, not at all clear.[/b]
What is the factor which decides one is a Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist? Please define your understanding! Just by saying I believe in Jesus, does not make you a Christian unless you following his teachings. The same goes for all religions.
With what authority do you now claim to speak for all religions?
Just getting baptised makes you a Christian according to Catholicism.
Quote:
If you read things relating to the context you will not fall in the danger of wrong interpretations. You cannot "PERFECTLY JUSTIFY" terrorist acts from any interpretations of the Quran. Actually is condemned through and through in the whole of Quran.

It is actually quite easy, I'll demonstrate.
Read Sura 2:190, 191. 192. The message here is basically - do not be the one to start hostilities, but if another starts the hostilities then you (muslims) must return the hostilities and if they invade the 'inviolable' then you must slay them. Only when they desist may you desist

Translation into context:
The US currently has troops in the 'inviolable' (Mecca - Saudi). It has therefore invades the inviolable and Muslims must therefore slay them. This must continue until the US withdraws from the holy places of Saudi Arabia.

Sura 3:168-170 tells the Jihadist that his cause is Just and therefore they will go to their Lord (heaven) should they be killed in battle.

Sura 4:91 - "If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant."

Sura 4:104 - "Relent not in pursuit of the enemy. If ye are suffering, lo! they suffer even as ye suffer and ye hope from Allah that for which they cannot hope. Allah is ever Knower, Wise. "
#
Sura 5:33 - "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
5:34 Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. "

Sura 22:39
"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory"

Again this can be used to justify terrorist reprisal against the aggressor (US).
Quote:
What makes sense to you might not make sense to me; what I meant by "TRUE SENSE" is the teaching of Islams in it's truest sense, that is to follow the Quran and Sunnah of the prophet. Lot of things are CRYSTAL clear. Like to believe there is Only One True God; Be dutiful to your parents, Dont indulge in adultery; Don't indulge in adultery; and the list goes on and on
True to who? Again you assume only one possible interpretation and that you have it. I disagree.
Quote:
First of all Islam came for unity; there is nothing called WAHHABISM in Islam.
That is your opinion, not the opinion of many Muslims in Saudi Arabia who think YOUR interpretation is wrong. Saying there is no Wahhabism is like Catholics saying there is no such thing as Protestant Christianity. It is clearly untrue. Wahhabism started a couple of centuries ago in a very similar manner to Proterstantism a couple of centuries before that. People observed that the so-called religious were inventing new rules and living in an 'ungodly' manner. Wahabbism, like Protestantism, started as a 'back to basics' movement in reaction to a corrupt officialdom within the church.
Quote:
For the sake of argument let us assume they exist, they too cannot prove "TERRORISM" from the Quran or the SUNNAH. Unless we get are getting here the wrong meaning of TERRORISM. If you say TERRORISM is to kill innocent people then definitely ISLAM does not support it whether from the QURAN, Sunnah or any ...ISM. Islam is all about unity; you claim you have Quran if so go to Chapter 49 verse no. 13 which shuns any division. If you notice that is addressed to the whole of mankind not just muslim (here you cannot misinterpret, or come with more than one meaning; It is clear).
And on the Authority of the Quran Chapter 5 verse number 32, there is nobody called "Islamic Terrorist" or "Muslim Terrorist".

And I refer you to the Suras I listed above which give special dispensation to the holy warrier to kill the enemy. Since America occupies the holy inviolate, then the Jihad must be against Americans and those who aid them. That includes their families, friends and countrymen.

Quote:
For this we have to blame ourselves and not anybody else. But if you take the teachings of Islam at face value and implement you are bound to be successful and live with peace.
[/quote]Tell that to Osama Bin Laden, and the Saudis
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/saudi-cleric-says-that-those-who-oppose-gender-segregation-should-be-killed.html
Consider what the Quran scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi says of the 'apostate' - which applies to the US and US leadership back in the states:
Quote:
The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9 God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God's religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword."
Tommyfromneverland
[/quote]
Muhammad never murdered anyone as Joe has stated.
If you can give proof to me that he killed someone on purpose, then I will believe you. He is also not a con man. He was not God. He was a prophet. He had no power of God, he was just a man. In Islam it is very wrong to appoint yourself with Gods Power. No one on Earth has power of God's. Muhammad solely was a gateway of which God spent his power down to Earth to teach the people of his marvel.


It is true that Muhammad never committed murder, he just slaughtered his enemies and raped the infidels (he distributed the captured women among his men after he chose several of them)
Tommyfromneverland
1.
When Japan entered the WWII, they did it for their emperor (although I think it is nothing to do with the emperor since the military was the one who control the country) and their counrty and it was nothing to do with Buddhism. Besides many of them (maybe most of them) are Shinto or were influenced by Shinto belief. Buddhism is really against violence and especially killing.
2.
Buddhism is different from Taoism but many people get confused between Taoism and Buddhism since many people who practice Tao says they are Buddhists. So if Mr. Cormac said that Buddhists had forced Taoism into submission in Japan, he has to ask the people who practice taoism.
Tommyfromneverland
1.
When Japan entered the WWII, they did it for their emperor (although I think it is nothing to do with the emperor since the military was the one who control the country) and their counrty and it was nothing to do with Buddhism. Besides many of them (maybe most of them) are Shinto or were influenced by Shinto belief. Buddhism is really against violence and especially killing.
2.
Buddhism is different from Taoism but many people get confused between Taoism and Buddhism since many people who practice Tao says they are Buddhists. So if Mr. Cormac said that Buddhists had forced Taoism into submission in Japan, he has to ask the people who practice taoism.
Bikerman
Tommyfromneverland wrote:
1.
When Japan entered the WWII, they did it for their emperor (although I think it is nothing to do with the emperor since the military was the one who control the country) and their counrty and it was nothing to do with Buddhism. Besides many of them (maybe most of them) are Shinto or were influenced by Shinto belief. Buddhism is really against violence and especially killing.
2.
Buddhism is different from Taoism but many people get confused between Taoism and Buddhism since many people who practice Tao says they are Buddhists. So if Mr. Cormac said that Buddhists had forced Taoism into submission in Japan, he has to ask the people who practice taoism.
I'm not talking about Taoists or Shintoism, I'm talking about Buddhism - particularly Zen Buddhism in the Japanese case and it is certain that many leading Zen Buddhists placed their authority (and temple facilities) firmly behind the emperor and were involved in many attrocities.
awahab
Bikerman,

None of the quotes you have quoted speaks about terrorism. While most of the quotes for itslef and the rest you have quoted out of context. As quoted in your translation u have given the example of Amercia invading Saudi. Let us take the reverse for the sake of argument. If Saudi has to invade America would the Americans leave it and welcome the Saudi's for invading with strectched arms, common sense prevails the answer would be a definite no. This is what I am saying Islam preserves your fundamental rights. And in the same verse it warns about crossing the limit that, you forgot to mention.

Sura 3: 168-170 Really pity inspite of telling me to stick to the context you wander around. This verse speaks of people who did not participate in the battle against the disbelievers (we will come that later on). Translated to the sitatuion: If one country is at war with another and the army general is giving incentive for those eho participate what is wrong in this? Let us say, according to you example, if America invades Saudi and we all know America is more powerful than Saudi; the Saudi Army General would entice the saudi people to participate, again common sense. Now about the wa, the war which is being spoken about had taken place in the outskirts of medina, whereby the disbelievers of mecca came to take the people of medina. So if we go according to your thinking one should just sit idle and die without defending oneself?

Sura 4:91. Again quoting out of context. Please read couple of verses before quoting this one you will understand. And particulalrly this verse it says "if they seek security provide/escort them".

Sura 4:104 Again nobody would their soldiers to leave the battlefiled and run away - common sense.

Sura 5:33 i already answered this, the reward for the soldiers is nothing less Jannah. Nothing wrong in rewarding the soldiers for fighting for the sake of their own country.

Sura 22:39 it is just your right to fight the oppressors.

And no where in the quran it says to kill families of the opposition, that your own understanding and thinking.

You are totally unaware of the islamic history my friend. I am going for prayer i will come and continue. Get your facts right.
Bikerman
LOL...and you mistake your own opinion for fact.
None of the quotes were taken out of context - I don't do that. All of the quotes add up to an injunction to wage war on the US.
(PS the Americans invaded Saudi during the first Gulf War according to many Muslims - they regard the House of Saud as collaborators with the Americans. The US still have military bases in Saudi, though most of their troops pulled-out in 2003. That is the justification Bin Laden gave for 9/11 and other terrorist acts)
So you agree that Bin Laden can point to the quran and say that it justified a Jihad. After all, as you say
Quote:
So if we go according to your thinking one should just sit idle and die without defending oneself?
No - I didn't say you should, I merely said that the Quran gives a special warrent in these circumstances to fight and kill the opressor and since the oppressor is the US, then Bin Laden and Al Queda can rightly claim support from their religious scriptures.
The sura 2:191-193 does indeed translate as a defensive war, but Al Queda say that is exactly what they are fighting - and against an enemy with overwhelming superiority in firepower. 'Fight them wherever you find them' is easily translated as 'take the fight to them'. Who is 'them'? 'Them' is the oppressor, the invader. That would certainly include infrastructure within the US - that is well recognised within normal articles of war. Therefore flying planes into the home of the opressor is not forbidden by the Quran and could be justified as simply part of the overall war or Jihad.
The same argument is used about the Israel-Palestine issue - the Jews are the oppressor and it is justified to strike back at them in any way possible. Only when THEY stop should the Muslim stop.
Many Muslim clerics and community leaders have said that the suicide bombing in Israel/Palestine are justified by the Quran using exactly the passages I have listed. Whilst you might think they are wrong, your argument is no more powerful than theirs.

PS - you mistake a challenge to your assertion for 'my thinking' - mistake.
Have I said that Muslims should roll over and tolerate oppression? Indeed, I believe that Muslims have a point when they talk about UK and US aggression and the death of many many innocent muslims being the blame of those two countries - I actually agree.
awahab
You are trying to drift the topic to somewhere else. Nevertheless, the whole 911 episode itself is a inside job of Americas own internal politics. There are ample proofs to that effect. Just googe it out and you will run out time to read, Americas own people are awaiting answers from the government, which the government failed to give. Your entire arguments revolves around Saudi and Osama bin laden. Why did you take the quotes as an injunction to wage a war against the US. U did quote out of context. All the quotes you quotes could not be generalized and if your remain within the context of the quotes you will see that these were the instructions given to the muslims of the time when the verses were revealed. Again that does not mean that cannot be applied in todays time if you are opprssed.

America had their own in interest in the middleeast right from the begining. Starting from the invasion of kuwait by iraq (america had an hand in that). Keeping that an as excuse they based a military base in saudi. Again they invade iraq in the pretext of "weapon of mass destruction" till today the world is waiting for the answer and there is no answer from america. Osama Bin laden an implant of Americas CIA to fight against the russians, who can deny that? And the drama of going behind Osama bin laden, imagine a powerful country like the US having a defense budget which runs into billions cannot get one simple man? Doesn't it sound absurd? Let us say for the sake of argument Osama's involvement in 911, what sense does it make it to punish/invade an Entire country for the mistake of man? Dont u see the agenda behind it?

Let us not drift from the topic. Neither Osama nor Saudi have the rights reserved to represent Islam. Islam is a universal truth which does not require anybody to vouch for. Truth stands clear from error, so does Islam and its teaching.
Bikerman
I have not drifted one iota. My point has been consistent all the way through.
I use Bin Laden because he is a very useful example of a Muslim who is not a peaceful man. I could have picked any number of people such as Abu Hanza, Omar Bakri Mohammed, Anwar Al-Awlaki, Zakir Naik etc etc.
The central point is that people can and have interpret the Quran and the Hadiths to mean very different things which are certainly NOT peaceful, so to claim that Islam is a compeletely peaceful religion is simply not true, unless you define everyone like Bin laden and the rest as not being Muslim - something which, as you know, you do not have the authority to do. Bin laden would probably say you were a 'bad muslim' - his worst condemnation of any Muslim - but he would not say you are not a muslim - even though he has a pretty radically different understanding of Islam and the quran than yours.

Quote:
Nevertheless, the whole 911 episode itself is a inside job of Americas own internal politics.
And with that sentence you loose any right to be taken seriously, and I bid you good-day.
awahab
As i said u don't have really any knowledge about Islam. You just close your eyes to the reality around you. You know nothing of Islamic history and it teachings. I really wish you could see things with an open mind and not shut the doors like this. The fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world itself sufficient proof enough. If you don't want to hear the truth fine with me. But you will realize this one day or other..

The simple thing does not go down your throat, that you can hold a religion responsible for some miscreants. If you take religion into account for what the followers do let me tell you that Christianity till today is on the top of the list which promotes terrorism way ahead of Islam. If Osama Bin Laden has ran the plane and killed 5000 odd innonect people, go back to history and see, see Hitler when he ruthlessly killed around 6 million jews, there is no mention of his religions teaching, why??? Because he was not a muslim. Don't forget the killings of Mussolinini, Stalin and the likes and still no mention of their religion will come to focus!!!! Why these double standards?
liljp617
awahab wrote:
The fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world itself sufficient proof enough.


Proof of what? That Muslims are procreating like crazy?
awahab
liljp617 wrote:
awahab wrote:
The fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world itself sufficient proof enough.


Proof of what? That Muslims are procreating like crazy?

Minds are blocked here to accept the simple fact! Use your senses to determine "proof of what"!! PROCREATING ???? Ha ha ha. You are unaware of the facts around you or probably living in your own nutshell. The media has poisioned your thinking ability so you do not think beyond the false propoganda which the media has created. People from other religion turn towards Islam and that rate is on the rise. And for your info no sword is being used, you see?


Wake up wake up guys.... Before it is too late....
c'tair
bluedragon wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
It is my opinion that Buddhism isn't a religion, but a way of life. There's a difference to me, but might not to you.


Merriam-Webster Online wrote:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective


Religion is a way of life, to me.


Note that there is no supernatural deity present in buddhism. A religious belief is something that involves a belief in the supernatural, but Buddhism, from what I am aware of, is mostly a set of rules based upon wisdom that enhance your life.
truespeed
awahab wrote:



Wake up wake up guys.... Before it is too late....


Too late for what?
awahab
truespeed wrote:
awahab wrote:



Wake up wake up guys.... Before it is too late....


Too late for what?


You just read the last part? Anyways: Too late that before death knocks at the door and you repent and you realize the truth!
truespeed
awahab wrote:
truespeed wrote:
awahab wrote:



Wake up wake up guys.... Before it is too late....


Too late for what?


You just read the last part? Anyways: Too late that before death knocks at the door and you repent and you realize the truth!


Christians say the same thing,funny that,you both can't be right,but you can both be wrong.
liljp617
awahab wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
awahab wrote:
The fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world itself sufficient proof enough.


Proof of what? That Muslims are procreating like crazy?

Minds are blocked here to accept the simple fact! Use your senses to determine "proof of what"!! PROCREATING ???? Ha ha ha. You are unaware of the facts around you or probably living in your own nutshell. The media has poisioned your thinking ability so you do not think beyond the false propoganda which the media has created. People from other religion turn towards Islam and that rate is on the rise. And for your info no sword is being used, you see?


Wake up wake up guys.... Before it is too late....


There's not a whole lot to block. Why would I care about the rate at which any religion is growing? It's a wonderful observation (I don't have the desire to go check out this rate), but what relevance does it have? So there are more Muslims, cool. Religions grow and decline all the time, it's not exactly a great change in the way the world works.

I'm unsure what the arrogance is about either. Don't really care "/
awahab
If you fail to understand simple things then indeed there is some blockage, though you may deny it. You come under the same category of people who just are determined not to get convinced by the facts around them, no matter how true or authentic an argument is provided, you have already decided not to take any input. If you want me to show you the moon, and you keep your eyes closed no matter how many moons i would show but you cannot see them. Similarly the statistics prove that, Islam has the solution to the problem of mankind and naturally man gets attracted to it.

You not caring about a thing hardly makes any difference to anybody. I am not sure what arrogance you are talking about, i am presenting plain facts which you 'don't care'. So nobody can help you but yourself.
deanhills
awahab wrote:
As i said u don't have really any knowledge about Islam. You just close your eyes to the reality around you. You know nothing of Islamic history and it teachings. I really wish you could see things with an open mind and not shut the doors like this. The fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world itself sufficient proof enough. If you don't want to hear the truth fine with me. But you will realize this one day or other.
To me this is proof that your mind may be closed instead. What makes you such an expert on the alleged "block" of people's minds? What do we need to know that is so exclusive to your mind? What facts are our minds blocked from? How about providing some specific factual information?
awahab
deanhills wrote:
awahab wrote:
As i said u don't have really any knowledge about Islam. You just close your eyes to the reality around you. You know nothing of Islamic history and it teachings. I really wish you could see things with an open mind and not shut the doors like this. The fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world itself sufficient proof enough. If you don't want to hear the truth fine with me. But you will realize this one day or other.
To me this is proof that your mind may be closed instead. What makes you such an expert on the alleged "block" of people's minds? What do we need to know that is so exclusive to your mind? What facts are our minds blocked from? How about providing some specific factual information?


Welcome aboard dont just cut and paste a part of what i wrote. I have provided all the facts in the previous post. One more just jumping into conclusions from nowhere. Please read the entire conversation and write back. If you did not understand any specific point then tell me, i am willing to explain. I am no expert in BLOCKAGES. All i am requesting is think with opem minds, you will get the answer. As bikerman quoted one of statement and quitted; Question
deanhills
awahab wrote:
I am no expert in BLOCKAGES.
I read through all of your postings the first time round. What specifically is it that YOU see and we don't get with regard to the topic of the thread, i.e. the most peaceful religion in the world? Thank you.
liljp617
awahab wrote:
If you fail to understand simple things then indeed there is some blockage, though you may deny it. You come under the same category of people who just are determined not to get convinced by the facts around them, no matter how true or authentic an argument is provided, you have already decided not to take any input. If you want me to show you the moon, and you keep your eyes closed no matter how many moons i would show but you cannot see them. Similarly the statistics prove that, Islam has the solution to the problem of mankind and naturally man gets attracted to it.

You not caring about a thing hardly makes any difference to anybody. I am not sure what arrogance you are talking about, i am presenting plain facts which you 'don't care'. So nobody can help you but yourself.


You've given no output for me to input "/ All you've done is tell me you have "the facts and truth" and I should bow down before it's too late and I suffer eternal damnation. Not very convincing to say the least. Quite bland actually...that tactic tends not to do so well on people whose neurons are functioning.
awahab
deanhills wrote:
awahab wrote:
I am no expert in BLOCKAGES.
I read through all of your postings the first time round. What specifically is it that YOU see and we don't get with regard to the topic of the thread, i.e. the most peaceful religion in the world? Thank you.


Huh! Here i go again. Right throughout my post i gave been proving time and again that Islam is the "most peaceful reliogion in the word". For this bikerman was argruing and i was providung proofs from the quran. All of which is on page 4 of this topics posts. Bikerman argument revolving round some so called "namesake" muslim and trying to prove things otherwise. And then he quits on some of my comments which were responses to his own questions/comments. I dont really think you have read the arguments between me and bikerman. Please, please read it again.
awahab
liljp617 wrote:
awahab wrote:
If you fail to understand simple things then indeed there is some blockage, though you may deny it. You come under the same category of people who just are determined not to get convinced by the facts around them, no matter how true or authentic an argument is provided, you have already decided not to take any input. If you want me to show you the moon, and you keep your eyes closed no matter how many moons i would show but you cannot see them. Similarly the statistics prove that, Islam has the solution to the problem of mankind and naturally man gets attracted to it.

You not caring about a thing hardly makes any difference to anybody. I am not sure what arrogance you are talking about, i am presenting plain facts which you 'don't care'. So nobody can help you but yourself.


You've given no output for me to input "/ All you've done is tell me you have "the facts and truth" and I should bow down before it's too late and I suffer eternal damnation. Not very convincing to say the least. Quite bland actually...that tactic tends not to do so well on people whose neurons are functioning.


I have given enough output to you input, you processings seems to be lil slow. Probably my english is not that clear that you fail to understand what i am trying to tell you. Let me here attempt another one, i will try to be as simple as possible. I quoted that Islam is the fatestest growing religion. What i meant here was; if Islam is the religions of the terrorists then why do people embrace such a religion Question If you have understood this part i will proceed with the next after you confirm.

No i am not asking you bow down that is you perosnal wish. I am presenting you with some facts. If you see the statistics; CNN states that 1/4 of the 6 millions muslims in the US alone are converted muslims that is post 911!!!
liljp617
awahab wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
awahab wrote:
If you fail to understand simple things then indeed there is some blockage, though you may deny it. You come under the same category of people who just are determined not to get convinced by the facts around them, no matter how true or authentic an argument is provided, you have already decided not to take any input. If you want me to show you the moon, and you keep your eyes closed no matter how many moons i would show but you cannot see them. Similarly the statistics prove that, Islam has the solution to the problem of mankind and naturally man gets attracted to it.

You not caring about a thing hardly makes any difference to anybody. I am not sure what arrogance you are talking about, i am presenting plain facts which you 'don't care'. So nobody can help you but yourself.


You've given no output for me to input "/ All you've done is tell me you have "the facts and truth" and I should bow down before it's too late and I suffer eternal damnation. Not very convincing to say the least. Quite bland actually...that tactic tends not to do so well on people whose neurons are functioning.


I have given enough output to you input, you processings seems to be lil slow. Probably my english is not that clear that you fail to understand what i am trying to tell you. Let me here attempt another one, i will try to be as simple as possible. I quoted that Islam is the fatestest growing religion. What i meant here was; if Islam is the religions of the terrorists then why do people embrace such a religion Question If you have understood this part i will proceed with the next after you confirm.

No i am not asking you bow down that is you perosnal wish. I am presenting you with some facts. If you see the statistics; CNN states that 1/4 of the 6 millions muslims in the US alone are converted muslims that is post 911!!!


I haven't seen anyone here say Islam is "the religion of terrorists." Perhaps they said "there is a large subset of Muslims who are terrorists." Two completely different statements -- one is false, one is true.

In other news: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
awahab
Though the words were not exactly what i had put it was meant to be that way. Anyways even then both of your statements are false. If you see history the word terrorism was much attributed to the christians rather then muslims. It is that only in the late 20th century muslims come in picture, that too the media has a big hand in this.
deanhills
awahab wrote:
Huh! Here i go again. Right throughout my post i gave been proving time and again that Islam is the "most peaceful reliogion in the word". For this bikerman was argruing and i was providung proofs from the quran. All of which is on page 4 of this topics posts. Bikerman argument revolving round some so called "namesake" muslim and trying to prove things otherwise. And then he quits on some of my comments which were responses to his own questions/comments. I dont really think you have read the arguments between me and bikerman. Please, please read it again.
That was a very good debate, and I did read it twice. As far as I can see, you want us to have an "open mind" to your version of Islam, which is a peaceful version. However, regretfully someone has to take responsibility for those Muslims who are in a very publicly stated state of war with the World. I'm including acts of terror that they have been responsible for as well. How do you separate yourself as a Muslim from those acts, as they are being justified by the same Quran.

I think for someone with a truly open mind, religion in itself is not peaceful at all, as there are always people who are fighting with one another as to which version is the correct version. Presently, also, if you look at world terror incidents, Islam seems to feature the most prominently, whether you agree with those responsible for the terror or not. It is a fact of life. Maybe you need to open your mind to that fact?

Refer Wikipedia for a list of some of the Islamic "Liberation" organizations and acts of terror in the name of Islam:

Quote:
Lashkar-e-Toiba - Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Taiba is a terrorist group that seeks the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to Pakistan. It has committed mass terrorist actions against Indian troops and civilians Indians. The Lashkar leadership describes Indian and Israeli regimes as the main enemies of Islam, claiming India and Israel to be the main enemies of Pakistan. Lashkar-e-Toiba, along with Jaish-e-Mohammed, another terrorist group active in Kashmir are on the United States’ foreign terrorist organizations list. They are also designated as terrorist groups by the United Kingdom, India, Australia and Pakistan.

Pakistan based Jaish-e-Mohammed (often abbreviated as JEM) is a major Islamic terrorist organization in South Asia. Jaish-e-Mohammed was formed in 1994 and is based in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The group's primary objective is to separate Kashmir from India, and it has carried out a series of attacks all over India.

The group was formed after the supporters of Maulana Masood Azhar split from another Islamic militant organization, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. Islamic terrorist Masood Azhar was freed in exchange for hijacked passengers of an Indian Airlines flight. On achieving his freedom, the murderer set about killing thousands more to achieve his goals of a Kashmir free from India. The group gets considerable funding from Pakistani expatriates in the United Kingdom and the UAE. The group is regarded as a terrorist organization by several countries including India, United States and United Kingdom. Jaish-e-Mohammed is viewed by some as the "deadliest" and "the principal terrorist organization in Jammu and Kashmir". The group was also implicated in the kidnapping and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

In Bangladesh the group Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh was formed sometime in 1998 and gained prominence on 20 May 2001 when 25 petrol bombs and documents detailing the activities of the organization were discovered and eight of its members were arrested in Parbatipur in Dinajpur district. The organization was officially banned in February 2005 after attacks on NGOs, but struck back in August when 300 bombs were detonated almost simultaneously throughout Bangladesh. Dhaka international airport, government buildings and major hotels were targeted.

In Afghanistan, Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin forces, are reported to have "sharply escalated bombing and other attacks in 2006 and early 2007" against civilians. During 2006 "at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at civilians or civilian objects. An additional 52 civilians were killed in insurgent attacks in the first two months of 2007."

Al-Qaeda is a worldwide pan-Islamic terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden now operating in more than 60 countries. Its stated aim is the use of jihad to defend Islam against Zionism, Christianity, Hinduism, the secular West, and Muslim governments such as Saudi Arabia, which it sees as insufficiently Islamic and too closely tied to America.

Formed by bin Laden and Muhammad Atef in the aftermath of the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, Al Qaeda called for the use of violence against civilians and military of the United States and any countries that are allied with it.[100] Since its formation Al Qaeda has committed a number of terrorist acts in Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Although once supported by the Taliban organization in Afghanistan, the U.S. and British governments never considered the Taliban to have been a terrorist organization.

Specially some events such as Twin Towers bombing in 1993, the 9/11 event and further much more events. Muslim popular opinion on the subject of attacks on civilians by Islamist groups varies, but most Muslims living in the West and most Muslim governments denounced the September 11th attacks on the US.

Major lethal attacks on civilians in Europe credited to Islamist terrorism include the 1995 Paris Metro bombings, 11 March 2004 bombings of commuter trains in Madrid, where 191 people were killed and 2,050 wounded, and the 7 July 2005 London bombings, also of public transport, which killed 52 commuters and injured 700. According to EU Terrorism Report there were almost 500 acts of terrorism across the European Union in 2006, but only one, the foiled suitcase bomb plot in Germany, was related to Islamist terror. In 2009, a Europol report also showed that more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last three years were, in fact, carried out by non-Muslims.

Politically motivated attacks on civilians in Russia have been traced to separatist sentiment among Muslims in its Caucasus region, particularly Chechnya. Russia's two biggest terrorist attacks both came from Muslim groups. In the Nord-Ost incident at a theater in Moscow in October 2002, the Chechnyan separatist "Special Purpose Islamic Regiment" took an estimated 850 people hostage. 39 hostage-takers were killed by Spetsnaz troops and at least 129 hostages died during the rescue, all but one killed by the chemicals used to subdue the attackers. Whether this attack would more properly be called a nationalist rather than an Islamist attack is in question.

In the September 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis 1,200 schoolchildren and adults were taken hostage after "School Number One" secondary school in Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania was overrun by the "Caucasus Caliphate Jihad" led by Shamil Basayev. As many as 500 died, including 186 children.[108] According to the only surviving attacker, Nur-Pashi Kulayev, the choice of a school and the targeting of mothers and young children by the attackers was done in hopes of generating a maximum of outrage and igniting a wider war in the Caucasus with the ultimate goal of establishing an Islamic Emirate across the whole of the North Caucasus.

Unrelated to the Shia Hezbollah of Lebanon, this Sunni terrorist group has been credited with the assassination of Diyarbakır police chief Gaffar Okkan, and the November 2003 bombings of two synagogues, the British consulate in Istanbul and HSBC bank headquarters, killing 58 and wounding several hundred.

The area that has seen some of the worst terror attacks in modern history has been Iraq as part of the Iraq War. In 2005, there were 400 incidents of one type of attack (suicide bombing), killing more than 2000 people – many if not most of them civilians. In 2006, almost half of all reported terrorist attacks in the world (6600), and more than half of all terrorist fatalities (13,000), occurred in Iraq, according to the National Counterterrorism Center of the United States. The insurgency in Iraq against the US and Iraqi government combines attacks on "Coalition troops" and the Iraqi security forces, with attacks on civilian contractors, aid workers, and infrastructure. Along with nationalist Ba'athist groups and criminal, non-political attacks, the insurgency includes Islamist insurgent groups, who favor suicide attacks far more than non-Islamist groups.

They include the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate; Al-Faruq Brigades, a militant wing of the Islamic Movement in Iraq (Al-Harakah al-Islamiyyah fi al-arak); Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna; the Mujahideen of the Victorious Sect (Mujahideen al ta’ifa al-Mansoura); the Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq (Kata’ib al mujahideen fi al-jama’ah al-salafiyah fi al-‘arak); the Jihad Brigades/Cell; "White Flags, Muslim Youth and Army of Mohammed" ; Ansar al-Islam, a Taliban-like, jihadist group with ties to Al Qaeda. At least some of the terrorism has a transnational character in that some foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency.

Fatah al-Islam is an Islamist group operating out of the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon. It was formed in November 2006 by fighters who broke off from the pro-Syrian Fatah al-Intifada, itself a splinter group of Fatah, and is led by a Palestinian fugitive militant named Shaker al-Abssi. The group's members have been described as militant jihadists and the group itself has been described as a terrorist movement that draws inspiration from al-Qaeda. Its stated goal is to reform the Palestinian refugee camps under Islamic sharia law, and its primary targets are Israel and the United States. Lebanese authorities have accused the organization of being involved in the 13 February 2007 bombing of two minibuses that killed three people, and injured more than 20 others, in Ain Alaq, Lebanon, and identified four of its members as having confessed to the bombing. consider it, or a part of it, to be a terrorist group responsible for blowing up the American embassy and later its annex, as well as the barracks of American and French peacekeeping troops and a dozens of kidnappings of foreigners in Beirut It is also accused of being the recipient of massive aid from Iran, and of serving "Iranian foreign policy calculations and interests," or serving as a "subcontractor of Iranian initiatives" Hezbollah denies any involvement or dependence on Iran.

Hamas, ("zeal" in Arabic and an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya), began support for attacks on military and civilian targets in Israel at the beginning of the First Intifada in 1987. As the Muslim Brotherhood organization for Palestine its leadership was made up of "intellectuals from the devout middle class,... respectable religious clerics, doctors, chemists, engineers, and teachers.

The 1988 charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel, and it still states its goal to be the elimination of Israel. Its "military wing" has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks in Israel, principally suicide bombings. Hamas has also been accused of sabotaging the Israeli-Palestine peace process by launching attacks on civilians during Israeli elections to anger Israeli voters and facilitate the election of harder-line Israeli candidates. For example, "a series of spectacular suicide attacks by Palestinians that killed 63 Israelis and led directly to the election victory of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party on 29 May 1996."

Hamas justifies these attacks as necessary in fighting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, and as responses to Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets. The wider movement also serves as a charity organization and provides services to Palestinians.

Hamas has been designated as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, Israel, Australia, Japan, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and Human Rights Watch. However Russia does not consider Hamas a terrorist group as it was democratically elected.

Islamic Jihad is a Palestinian Islamist group based in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and dedicated to waging jihad to eliminate the state of Israel. It was formed by Egyptian Fathi Shaqaqi in the Gaza Strip following the Iranian Revolution which inspired its members. From 1983 onward, it engaged in "a succession of violent, high-profile attacks" on Israeli targets. The intifada which "it eventually sparked" was quickly taken over by the much larger Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas. Beginning in September 2000, it started a campaign of suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians. It is currently led by Sheikh Abdullah Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan.

The Armed Islamic Group, active in Algeria between 1992 and 1998, was one of the most violent Islamic terrorist groups, and is thought to have takfired the Muslim population of Algeria. Its campaign to overthrow the Algerian government included civilian massacres, which sometimes wiping out entire villages in its area of operation (see List of Algerian massacres of the 1990s; notably the Bentalha massacre and Rais massacre, among others.) It also targeted foreigners living in Algeria killing more than 100 expatriate men and women in the country. The group's favored technique was the kidnapping of victims and slitting their throats although it also used assassination by gun and bombings, including car bombs. Outside of Algeria, the GIA established a presence in France, Belgium, Britain, Italy and the United States. In recent years it has been eclipsed by a splinter group, The Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), now called Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb.

The Abu Sayyaf Group also known as al-Harakat al-Islamiyya is one of several militant Islamist separatist groups based in and around the southern islands of the Philippines, in Bangsamoro (Jolo, Basilan, and Mindanao) where for almost 30 years various Muslim groups have been engaged in an insurgency for a state, independent of the predominantly Christian Philippines. The name of the group is derived from the Arabic ابو, abu ("father of") and sayyaf ("Swordsmith").

Since its inception in the early 1990s, the group has carried out bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, rapes, and extortion in their fight for an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago with the stated goal of creating a pan-Islamic superstate across southeast Asia, spanning from east to west; the island of Mindanao, the Sulu Archipelago, the island of Borneo (Malaysia, Indonesia), the South China Sea, and the Malay Peninsula (Peninsular Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar).[139]

Along with bombings and hijackings, Islamic terrorists have made extensive use of highly publicised kidnappings and executions, often circulating videos of the acts for use as propaganda. Notable foreign victims include Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr., Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Kim Sun-il, Kenneth Bigley, Shosei Koda, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, Margaret Hassan. One Iraqi victim was Seif Adnan Kanaan. The most frequent form of execution by these groups has been decapitation. While some targets are military, or seen as supporting the anti-Islamist forces, victims are also as varied as the Red Cross, the Iraqi education ministry, and diplomats.

In the beginning of the 21st century, also a worldwide network of hundreds of jihadist web sites emerged, that inspire, train, educate and recruit young Muslims to engage in "jihad against America and the West", taking less prominent roles in mosques and community centers that are under scrutiny. In December 2009, five men from Virginia were arrested in Pakistan, where they went, they told Pakistani police, "to join the jihad against U.S. troops in Afghanistan". They first made contact with two extremist organizations in Pakistan by e-mail in August. As The Washington Post reported "Online recruiting has exponentially increased, with Facebook, YouTube and the increasing sophistication of people online".
awahab
deanhills wrote:
Quote:
As far as I can see, you want us to have an "open mind" to your version of Islam, which is a peaceful version.
Not really, what I am saying is you cannot hold the Religion responsible for what the so called followers of the religion do!.


Quote:
However, regretfully someone has to take responsibility for those Muslims who are in a very publicly stated state of war with the World. I'm including acts of terror that they have been responsible for as well.
There is no established proof to that effect, all are reports by the western media, which easily could be concocted, though you may disagree with this. Take some time to watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE It's a bit lengthy but worth a watch.

Quote:
How do you separate yourself as a Muslim from those acts, as they are being justified by the same Quran.
No part of the Quran justifies killing of innocent lives! Killing of innocent people is disapproved in Islam. This is what I am trying to tell you!!!

By the Grace of Almighty I have a sound and open mind
liljp617
awahab wrote:
Though the words were not exactly what i had put it was meant to be that way. Anyways even then both of your statements are false. If you see history the word terrorism was much attributed to the christians rather then muslims. It is that only in the late 20th century muslims come in picture, that too the media has a big hand in this.


There are a large number of self-claimed Muslims who are terrorists, and they often use their religion to promote their goals. How in the world is that false? The media has nothing to do with it -- it is a plain fact that a large number of Muslims take part in or promote terrorist activities.
awahab
liljp617 wrote:
awahab wrote:
Though the words were not exactly what i had put it was meant to be that way. Anyways even then both of your statements are false. If you see history the word terrorism was much attributed to the christians rather then muslims. It is that only in the late 20th century muslims come in picture, that too the media has a big hand in this.


There are a large number of self-claimed Muslims who are terrorists, and they often use their religion to promote their goals. How in the world is that false? The media has nothing to do with it -- it is a plain fact that a large number of Muslims take part in or promote terrorist activities.
Again you are quoting your own opinion and the one which your media has induced in your minds!! Didn't you see the video which I had pasted the link before; never mind here is the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

Isn't it easy to for anybody to do a terrorist act and claim that they are muslims? How do you really base your argument? On what authority do you claim that an attack is done by a muslim? BASELESS!!!
arahman
deanhills wrote:
awahab wrote:
Huh! Here i go again. Right throughout my post i gave been proving time and again that Islam is the "most peaceful reliogion in the word". For this bikerman was argruing and i was providung proofs from the quran. All of which is on page 4 of this topics posts. Bikerman argument revolving round some so called "namesake" muslim and trying to prove things otherwise. And then he quits on some of my comments which were responses to his own questions/comments. I dont really think you have read the arguments between me and bikerman. Please, please read it again.
That was a very good debate, and I did read it twice. As far as I can see, you want us to have an "open mind" to your version of Islam, which is a peaceful version. However, regretfully someone has to take responsibility for those Muslims who are in a very publicly stated state of war with the World. I'm including acts of terror that they have been responsible for as well. How do you separate yourself as a Muslim from those acts, as they are being justified by the same Quran.

I think for someone with a truly open mind, religion in itself is not peaceful at all, as there are always people who are fighting with one another as to which version is the correct version. Presently, also, if you look at world terror incidents, Islam seems to feature the most prominently, whether you agree with those responsible for the terror or not. It is a fact of life. Maybe you need to open your mind to that fact?

Refer Wikipedia for a list of some of the Islamic "Liberation" organizations and acts of terror in the name of Islam:

Quote:
Lashkar-e-Toiba - Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Taiba is a terrorist group that seeks the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to Pakistan. It has committed mass terrorist actions against Indian troops and civilians Indians. The Lashkar leadership describes Indian and Israeli regimes as the main enemies of Islam, claiming India and Israel to be the main enemies of Pakistan. Lashkar-e-Toiba, along with Jaish-e-Mohammed, another terrorist group active in Kashmir are on the United States’ foreign terrorist organizations list. They are also designated as terrorist groups by the United Kingdom, India, Australia and Pakistan.

Pakistan based Jaish-e-Mohammed (often abbreviated as JEM) is a major Islamic terrorist organization in South Asia. Jaish-e-Mohammed was formed in 1994 and is based in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The group's primary objective is to separate Kashmir from India, and it has carried out a series of attacks all over India.

The group was formed after the supporters of Maulana Masood Azhar split from another Islamic militant organization, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. Islamic terrorist Masood Azhar was freed in exchange for hijacked passengers of an Indian Airlines flight. On achieving his freedom, the murderer set about killing thousands more to achieve his goals of a Kashmir free from India. The group gets considerable funding from Pakistani expatriates in the United Kingdom and the UAE. The group is regarded as a terrorist organization by several countries including India, United States and United Kingdom. Jaish-e-Mohammed is viewed by some as the "deadliest" and "the principal terrorist organization in Jammu and Kashmir". The group was also implicated in the kidnapping and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

In Bangladesh the group Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh was formed sometime in 1998 and gained prominence on 20 May 2001 when 25 petrol bombs and documents detailing the activities of the organization were discovered and eight of its members were arrested in Parbatipur in Dinajpur district. The organization was officially banned in February 2005 after attacks on NGOs, but struck back in August when 300 bombs were detonated almost simultaneously throughout Bangladesh. Dhaka international airport, government buildings and major hotels were targeted.

In Afghanistan, Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin forces, are reported to have "sharply escalated bombing and other attacks in 2006 and early 2007" against civilians. During 2006 "at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at civilians or civilian objects. An additional 52 civilians were killed in insurgent attacks in the first two months of 2007."

Al-Qaeda is a worldwide pan-Islamic terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden now operating in more than 60 countries. Its stated aim is the use of jihad to defend Islam against Zionism, Christianity, Hinduism, the secular West, and Muslim governments such as Saudi Arabia, which it sees as insufficiently Islamic and too closely tied to America.

Formed by bin Laden and Muhammad Atef in the aftermath of the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, Al Qaeda called for the use of violence against civilians and military of the United States and any countries that are allied with it.[100] Since its formation Al Qaeda has committed a number of terrorist acts in Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Although once supported by the Taliban organization in Afghanistan, the U.S. and British governments never considered the Taliban to have been a terrorist organization.

Specially some events such as Twin Towers bombing in 1993, the 9/11 event and further much more events. Muslim popular opinion on the subject of attacks on civilians by Islamist groups varies, but most Muslims living in the West and most Muslim governments denounced the September 11th attacks on the US.

Major lethal attacks on civilians in Europe credited to Islamist terrorism include the 1995 Paris Metro bombings, 11 March 2004 bombings of commuter trains in Madrid, where 191 people were killed and 2,050 wounded, and the 7 July 2005 London bombings, also of public transport, which killed 52 commuters and injured 700. According to EU Terrorism Report there were almost 500 acts of terrorism across the European Union in 2006, but only one, the foiled suitcase bomb plot in Germany, was related to Islamist terror. In 2009, a Europol report also showed that more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last three years were, in fact, carried out by non-Muslims.

Politically motivated attacks on civilians in Russia have been traced to separatist sentiment among Muslims in its Caucasus region, particularly Chechnya. Russia's two biggest terrorist attacks both came from Muslim groups. In the Nord-Ost incident at a theater in Moscow in October 2002, the Chechnyan separatist "Special Purpose Islamic Regiment" took an estimated 850 people hostage. 39 hostage-takers were killed by Spetsnaz troops and at least 129 hostages died during the rescue, all but one killed by the chemicals used to subdue the attackers. Whether this attack would more properly be called a nationalist rather than an Islamist attack is in question.

In the September 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis 1,200 schoolchildren and adults were taken hostage after "School Number One" secondary school in Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania was overrun by the "Caucasus Caliphate Jihad" led by Shamil Basayev. As many as 500 died, including 186 children.[108] According to the only surviving attacker, Nur-Pashi Kulayev, the choice of a school and the targeting of mothers and young children by the attackers was done in hopes of generating a maximum of outrage and igniting a wider war in the Caucasus with the ultimate goal of establishing an Islamic Emirate across the whole of the North Caucasus.

Unrelated to the Shia Hezbollah of Lebanon, this Sunni terrorist group has been credited with the assassination of Diyarbakır police chief Gaffar Okkan, and the November 2003 bombings of two synagogues, the British consulate in Istanbul and HSBC bank headquarters, killing 58 and wounding several hundred.

The area that has seen some of the worst terror attacks in modern history has been Iraq as part of the Iraq War. In 2005, there were 400 incidents of one type of attack (suicide bombing), killing more than 2000 people – many if not most of them civilians. In 2006, almost half of all reported terrorist attacks in the world (6600), and more than half of all terrorist fatalities (13,000), occurred in Iraq, according to the National Counterterrorism Center of the United States. The insurgency in Iraq against the US and Iraqi government combines attacks on "Coalition troops" and the Iraqi security forces, with attacks on civilian contractors, aid workers, and infrastructure. Along with nationalist Ba'athist groups and criminal, non-political attacks, the insurgency includes Islamist insurgent groups, who favor suicide attacks far more than non-Islamist groups.

They include the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate; Al-Faruq Brigades, a militant wing of the Islamic Movement in Iraq (Al-Harakah al-Islamiyyah fi al-arak); Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna; the Mujahideen of the Victorious Sect (Mujahideen al ta’ifa al-Mansoura); the Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq (Kata’ib al mujahideen fi al-jama’ah al-salafiyah fi al-‘arak); the Jihad Brigades/Cell; "White Flags, Muslim Youth and Army of Mohammed" ; Ansar al-Islam, a Taliban-like, jihadist group with ties to Al Qaeda. At least some of the terrorism has a transnational character in that some foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency.

Fatah al-Islam is an Islamist group operating out of the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon. It was formed in November 2006 by fighters who broke off from the pro-Syrian Fatah al-Intifada, itself a splinter group of Fatah, and is led by a Palestinian fugitive militant named Shaker al-Abssi. The group's members have been described as militant jihadists and the group itself has been described as a terrorist movement that draws inspiration from al-Qaeda. Its stated goal is to reform the Palestinian refugee camps under Islamic sharia law, and its primary targets are Israel and the United States. Lebanese authorities have accused the organization of being involved in the 13 February 2007 bombing of two minibuses that killed three people, and injured more than 20 others, in Ain Alaq, Lebanon, and identified four of its members as having confessed to the bombing. consider it, or a part of it, to be a terrorist group responsible for blowing up the American embassy and later its annex, as well as the barracks of American and French peacekeeping troops and a dozens of kidnappings of foreigners in Beirut It is also accused of being the recipient of massive aid from Iran, and of serving "Iranian foreign policy calculations and interests," or serving as a "subcontractor of Iranian initiatives" Hezbollah denies any involvement or dependence on Iran.

Hamas, ("zeal" in Arabic and an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya), began support for attacks on military and civilian targets in Israel at the beginning of the First Intifada in 1987. As the Muslim Brotherhood organization for Palestine its leadership was made up of "intellectuals from the devout middle class,... respectable religious clerics, doctors, chemists, engineers, and teachers.

The 1988 charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel, and it still states its goal to be the elimination of Israel. Its "military wing" has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks in Israel, principally suicide bombings. Hamas has also been accused of sabotaging the Israeli-Palestine peace process by launching attacks on civilians during Israeli elections to anger Israeli voters and facilitate the election of harder-line Israeli candidates. For example, "a series of spectacular suicide attacks by Palestinians that killed 63 Israelis and led directly to the election victory of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party on 29 May 1996."

Hamas justifies these attacks as necessary in fighting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, and as responses to Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets. The wider movement also serves as a charity organization and provides services to Palestinians.

Hamas has been designated as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, Israel, Australia, Japan, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and Human Rights Watch. However Russia does not consider Hamas a terrorist group as it was democratically elected.

Islamic Jihad is a Palestinian Islamist group based in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and dedicated to waging jihad to eliminate the state of Israel. It was formed by Egyptian Fathi Shaqaqi in the Gaza Strip following the Iranian Revolution which inspired its members. From 1983 onward, it engaged in "a succession of violent, high-profile attacks" on Israeli targets. The intifada which "it eventually sparked" was quickly taken over by the much larger Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas. Beginning in September 2000, it started a campaign of suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians. It is currently led by Sheikh Abdullah Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan.

The Armed Islamic Group, active in Algeria between 1992 and 1998, was one of the most violent Islamic terrorist groups, and is thought to have takfired the Muslim population of Algeria. Its campaign to overthrow the Algerian government included civilian massacres, which sometimes wiping out entire villages in its area of operation (see List of Algerian massacres of the 1990s; notably the Bentalha massacre and Rais massacre, among others.) It also targeted foreigners living in Algeria killing more than 100 expatriate men and women in the country. The group's favored technique was the kidnapping of victims and slitting their throats although it also used assassination by gun and bombings, including car bombs. Outside of Algeria, the GIA established a presence in France, Belgium, Britain, Italy and the United States. In recent years it has been eclipsed by a splinter group, The Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), now called Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb.

The Abu Sayyaf Group also known as al-Harakat al-Islamiyya is one of several militant Islamist separatist groups based in and around the southern islands of the Philippines, in Bangsamoro (Jolo, Basilan, and Mindanao) where for almost 30 years various Muslim groups have been engaged in an insurgency for a state, independent of the predominantly Christian Philippines. The name of the group is derived from the Arabic ابو, abu ("father of") and sayyaf ("Swordsmith").

Since its inception in the early 1990s, the group has carried out bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, rapes, and extortion in their fight for an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago with the stated goal of creating a pan-Islamic superstate across southeast Asia, spanning from east to west; the island of Mindanao, the Sulu Archipelago, the island of Borneo (Malaysia, Indonesia), the South China Sea, and the Malay Peninsula (Peninsular Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar).[139]

Along with bombings and hijackings, Islamic terrorists have made extensive use of highly publicised kidnappings and executions, often circulating videos of the acts for use as propaganda. Notable foreign victims include Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr., Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Kim Sun-il, Kenneth Bigley, Shosei Koda, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, Margaret Hassan. One Iraqi victim was Seif Adnan Kanaan. The most frequent form of execution by these groups has been decapitation. While some targets are military, or seen as supporting the anti-Islamist forces, victims are also as varied as the Red Cross, the Iraqi education ministry, and diplomats.

In the beginning of the 21st century, also a worldwide network of hundreds of jihadist web sites emerged, that inspire, train, educate and recruit young Muslims to engage in "jihad against America and the West", taking less prominent roles in mosques and community centers that are under scrutiny. In December 2009, five men from Virginia were arrested in Pakistan, where they went, they told Pakistani police, "to join the jihad against U.S. troops in Afghanistan". They first made contact with two extremist organizations in Pakistan by e-mail in August. As The Washington Post reported "Online recruiting has exponentially increased, with Facebook, YouTube and the increasing sophistication of people online".


You dont seem to understand awahab point AT ALL...You came back to same point from where it all started....

Let me summarize it for you..
1. Islam Does Not Support Terrorism In Its Scripture Or Via Message

2. In Order To Justify Verse, Which Talks About Killing, You Should Read That Verse In Context, For Which Was Revealed. Although It Does Not Apply On Current Times.

3. Islam Is Fastest Growing Religionm Fact Which U Can See All Around. And Masses Are Accepting Islam. Inspite Of Infidels And Treacherous Ppl Trying To Defame And Put Islam In Bad Light By Quoting Verses And Hadeeth, Without They Themselve Not Knowing How To Find Truth.

4. Currently Any Information Needs To Be Analysed Properly And Thorougly.

5. There Were Terrror Attempts By Ppl In All The Ages....But To Find Out Whether Religion Is Really Involved..You Must Check The Scriptures Rationally And Justly

6. Iraq Motive Was Oil..Afganistan Was Its Mineral Resources. And Some Good Reason Was Needed To Attack, Hence Wtc Was Created..And I Bet One Day Or Other Iran Would Be Attached Tone Sopme Pretext Or Other, Again Its Oil..


7. There Are Lots Of Terrrorist Organization Created By Govt, Just To Fast Track Their Wordly Goals And Blame Is Put On Islam

8. Dont Conclude On Basis Of Followers. See What Actual Scriptures Say.Of Course In Proper Context

9. Killing Of Innocent Ppl Is Strictly Prhibited. Ppl Doing This Are Asked To Dot By Their Masters Or Doing It Out Of Ignorance.

10. Look Around World..Its Become Bad Place To Live; Even If U Take Out All So Called Islamic Terror..Its Still Bad....Promiscuity/Adultery/Fornication/Incest/Rape/Theft/Roberry/Immoral Sexual Perversion/Degrading Human & Social Values/Poverty/Hunger And We Hear This Every Second. Islam Has Solution And Has It Was Always There..Once Applied U Shall See The Results..

11. I Invite You To Truth Of Islam. In Order To Know About Islam Know From Its Authentic Source And Know From Its Clean Source. You Will Conclude On Basis Of Source.
deanhills
arahman wrote:

You dont seem to understand awahab point AT ALL...You came back to same point from where it all started....
I understood it perfectly. You are holding one view of Islam as the one that you say is the definitive view, and you have quoted scripture to that effect. At the same time there are a very large number of terrorist organizations who also maintain their view is the definitive view of Islam, and they also quote scripture to justify their actions. The fact that there are two opposing views in the same religion, is already a sign of conflict, and non-peaceful. There is not a united front. Also, somewhere you would need to take a very clear position against the terror side of Islam, which I have not seen anyone doing on a large and public scale. I.e. say publicly and very strongly to those Muslim organizations who are pursuing terrorism that they are not of the Islam faith. Publicly deny that they are Muslims. If peaceful Muslims can do that, then you can ask us to have an open mind, but you can't have it both ways. Say you are peaceful and of the real faith, and ignore other Muslims who also say they are of the faith, but have made a very public stand for violence based on the Islamic faith. There is nothing open-minded about that.
awahab
deanhills wrote:
Quote:
I understood it perfectly.
So you claim!! But your argument reflect that you understood nothing of the simplest of thing i am trying to telling you. This is what i called blockage.
Quote:
You are holding one view of Islam as the one that you say is the definitive view, and you have quoted scripture to that effect.
Again you assume things not the fact. The scriptures are clear to that effect, only you fail to comprehend.
Quote:
The fact that there are two opposing views in the same religion, is already a sign of conflict, and non-peaceful.
I don't agree and doubt anybody will!! Even if I agree, difference in opinion not necessarily mean non-peaceful! What analogy are applying here???
Quote:
you would need to take a very clear position against the terror side of Islam,
No need to as there ain't any terror of side of Islam as far as innocent people are concerned.
Quote:
which I have not seen anyone doing on a large and public scale. I.e. say publicly and very strongly to those Muslim organizations who are pursuing terrorism that they are not of the Islam faith. Publicly deny that they are Muslims. If peaceful Muslims can do that, then you can ask us to have an open mind, but you can't have it both ways.
Again you are not getting the point here. Not necessarily we have to say that, when the Quran disapproves such acts, we are not of higher authority than then Quran to say who is who...And by the way, not necessarily a large scale is an authority of something wrong or right! That is called democracy and not RELIGION


All said and done. I am asking you based on what authority do you term such an such act is the handy work of the muslims??? All your arguments are based on assumptions and not established fact. I am repeating here; I would really like to see your comments on the video link which I am posting again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE You cannot just go on and on based on false and concocted reports by the media. You see what the media wants to show!
Bikerman
awahab wrote:
As bikerman quoted one of statement and quitted; Question

Ahem....I didn't 'quit'. I stopped responding because as a moderator I have to watch what I write and you were talking such bollox that I thought it best to just ignore it.
If you want me to go through your postings and point out each logical fallacy I will try to find the time later. For the moment you could start by looking up the 'ad populum' fallacy which you are very fond of using.
awahab
Quote:
For the moment you could start by looking up the 'ad populum' fallacy which you are very fond of using.
Actually I did look into the term "ad populum" which I 100% see you fitting into that and befits your style of arguing best.
liljp617
awahab wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
awahab wrote:
Though the words were not exactly what i had put it was meant to be that way. Anyways even then both of your statements are false. If you see history the word terrorism was much attributed to the christians rather then muslims. It is that only in the late 20th century muslims come in picture, that too the media has a big hand in this.


There are a large number of self-claimed Muslims who are terrorists, and they often use their religion to promote their goals. How in the world is that false? The media has nothing to do with it -- it is a plain fact that a large number of Muslims take part in or promote terrorist activities.
Again you are quoting your own opinion and the one which your media has induced in your minds!! Didn't you see the video which I had pasted the link before; never mind here is the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

Isn't it easy to for anybody to do a terrorist act and claim that they are muslims? How do you really base your argument? On what authority do you claim that an attack is done by a muslim? BASELESS!!!


I have a strong inclination you're trolling/flamebaiting. I don't know why, as it's really not humorous anymore, especially when it's very uncreative.

How do I know there are terrorists who are Muslims? Oh I don't know, perhaps I've opened a history book that covers the Middle East? Or maybe, oh let's see, they come straight up to video cameras taking full responsibility for terrorist actions done in the name of their deity?

I guess that's just the US government and western media paying people off and making history up though. They must pay off a lot of historians as well, from all across the world -- even Middle Eastern historians. Boy "the west" is just so manipulative.

You're being ridiculous...and I'm the closed-minded one Rolling Eyes

Please stop posting Loose Change as well. It's one of the more humorous "documentaries" of recent.
Bikerman
awahab wrote:
Quote:
For the moment you could start by looking up the 'ad populum' fallacy which you are very fond of using.
Actually I did look into the term "ad populum" which I 100% see you fitting into that and befits your style of arguing best.

Did you indeed? Very good - so why don't you explain what an ad-populum fallacy is, and then show me one single example of me using one.
awahab
Bikerman wrote:
awahab wrote:
Quote:
For the moment you could start by looking up the 'ad populum' fallacy which you are very fond of using.
Actually I did look into the term "ad populum" which I 100% see you fitting into that and befits your style of arguing best.

Did you indeed? Very good - so why don't you explain what an ad-populum fallacy is, and then show me one single example of me using one.
Example from wikipedia "This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true.

* Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.
* Nine out of ten of my fellow congressmen favor the bill, therefore it is a good idea.

Didn't get yet???
arahman
deanhills wrote:
arahman wrote:

You dont seem to understand awahab point AT ALL...You came back to same point from where it all started....
I understood it perfectly. You are holding one view of Islam as the one that you say is the definitive view, and you have quoted scripture to that effect. At the same time there are a very large number of terrorist organizations who also maintain their view is the definitive view of Islam, and they also quote scripture to justify their actions. The fact that there are two opposing views in the same religion, is already a sign of conflict, and non-peaceful. There is not a united front. Also, somewhere you would need to take a very clear position against the terror side of Islam, which I have not seen anyone doing on a large and public scale. I.e. say publicly and very strongly to those Muslim organizations who are pursuing terrorism that they are not of the Islam faith. Publicly deny that they are Muslims. If peaceful Muslims can do that, then you can ask us to have an open mind, but you can't have it both ways. Say you are peaceful and of the real faith, and ignore other Muslims who also say they are of the faith, but have made a very public stand for violence based on the Islamic faith. There is nothing open-minded about that.


Before offering you some clarity of so called mis-interprated islamic voilence.............I want to understand your beliefs in god or do you believe god exists. For a time being lets park this subject aside...and trust me this is closely and deeply connected with our subject...a peaceful religion...there is reason for everything and there is nothing called coincidence or chance....and voilence for good cause is good.....simple example...sometimes we are forced to use stick to discipline our childrens...the disciplining entitiy can change wrt subject and magnitude of would to be results of the cause....!!!
Bikerman
Good - the definition is copied which doesn't mean you understood it, but at least you looked it up. Now the second part. You said that "I 100% see you fitting into that and befits your style of arguing best." so can you now give me an example of me using it or looking like I might use it or even hinting as much?
Whilst you check back, I'll do the same for you - I'll stick to just one page of your postings.
1. Ad populum fallacies: mainly bandwaggon variety
Quote:
Islam Is Fastest Growing Religionm Fact Which U Can See All Around.

Quote:
I quoted that Islam is the fatestest growing religion. What i meant here was; if Islam is the religions of the terrorists then why do people embrace such a religion

Quote:
People from other religion turn towards Islam and that rate is on the rise.

There are several more but let's not stick to only those fallacies, let's be inclusive.

2. unsupported assertion begging the question fallacy
Quote:
there is reason for everything and there is nothing called coincidence or chance


3. Ad-hominem fallacy coupled to special pleading.
Quote:
Inspite Of Infidels And Treacherous Ppl Trying To Defame And Put Islam In Bad Light By Quoting Verses And Hadeeth, Without They Themselve Not Knowing How To Find Truth.


4. Special pleading and appeal to authority fallacy
Quote:
Currently Any Information Needs To Be Analysed Properly And Thorougly.


5. Two wrongs fallacy

There Were Terrror Attempts By Ppl In All The Ages

6 Unsupported assertions and conspiracy theory (Too many to list, I'll pick a small sample)
Quote:
There Are Lots Of Terrrorist Organization Created By Govt, Just To Fast Track Their Wordly Goals And Blame Is Put On Islam

Quote:
There is no established proof to that effect, all are reports by the western media, which easily could be concocted, though you may disagree with this.


Now that is just on this one page. The ad populum fallacy is used in just about every other posting - as if the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion somehow means it is better - classic ad-pop. In fact it may or may not be the fastest growing depending on what measure you use and which statistics you believe. Much growth is actually displacement as muslims move in increasing numbers to the west and away from their own muslim countries. The bad on contraception also means that muslim families tend to be larger and since children are automatically Muslim when born to muslim parents then the effect is obvious.
Various religions claim to be the fastest growing : a few samples
http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/fgr.html
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/churchandministry/evangelism/mormons_are_fastest_growing_religion.aspx

In fact, if I were so inclined I could probably make the case that atheism is the fastest growing religion, but I won't because it isn't a religion and why would I want to? If you want my guess then I'd say Bahaism or Zoroastrianism or any small religion in a country with a growing population. Islam has over 1 billion followers so to grow fast it has to find huge numbers. The smaller religions can grow with comparatively small increases in numbers.
But why waste more time on an argument that is meaningless to the substantive debate?
arahman
Bikerman wrote:
Good - the definition is copied which doesn't mean you understood it, but at least you looked it up. Now the second part. You said that "I 100% see you fitting into that and befits your style of arguing best." so can you now give me an example of me using it or looking like I might use it or even hinting as much?
Whilst you check back, I'll do the same for you - I'll stick to just one page of your postings.
1. Ad populum fallacies: mainly bandwaggon variety
Quote:
Islam Is Fastest Growing Religionm Fact Which U Can See All Around.

Quote:
I quoted that Islam is the fatestest growing religion. What i meant here was; if Islam is the religions of the terrorists then why do people embrace such a religion

Quote:
People from other religion turn towards Islam and that rate is on the rise.

There are several more but let's not stick to only those fallacies, let's be inclusive.

2. unsupported assertion begging the question fallacy
Quote:
there is reason for everything and there is nothing called coincidence or chance


3. Ad-hominem fallacy coupled to special pleading.
Quote:
Inspite Of Infidels And Treacherous Ppl Trying To Defame And Put Islam In Bad Light By Quoting Verses And Hadeeth, Without They Themselve Not Knowing How To Find Truth.


4. Special pleading and appeal to authority fallacy
Quote:
Currently Any Information Needs To Be Analysed Properly And Thorougly.


5. Two wrongs fallacy

There Were Terrror Attempts By Ppl In All The Ages

6 Unsupported assertions and conspiracy theory (Too many to list, I'll pick a small sample)
Quote:
There Are Lots Of Terrrorist Organization Created By Govt, Just To Fast Track Their Wordly Goals And Blame Is Put On Islam

Quote:
There is no established proof to that effect, all are reports by the western media, which easily could be concocted, though you may disagree with this.


Now that is just on this one page. The ad populum fallacy is used in just about every other posting - as if the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion somehow means it is better - classic ad-pop. In fact it may or may not be the fastest growing depending on what measure you use and which statistics you believe. Much growth is actually displacement as muslims move in increasing numbers to the west and away from their own muslim countries. The bad on contraception also means that muslim families tend to be larger and since children are automatically Muslim when born to muslim parents then the effect is obvious.
Various religions claim to be the fastest growing : a few samples
http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/fgr.html
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/churchandministry/evangelism/mormons_are_fastest_growing_religion.aspx

In fact, if I were so inclined I could probably make the case that atheism is the fastest growing religion, but I won't because it isn't a religion and why would I want to? If you want my guess then I'd say Bahaism or Zoroastrianism or any small religion in a country with a growing population. Islam has over 1 billion followers so to grow fast it has to find huge numbers. The smaller religions can grow with comparatively small increases in numbers.
But why waste more time on an argument that is meaningless to the substantive debate?

The theories do support the fact..and what info...u have seen so far is clearly factual plus supported by theory + real exp; NOT REEL EXP

From whole theme of your post, I would rather put your entire posting under "argumentum ad populum". And thats what i m trying to correct.

A rational & intellegent man will just not believe what is said or shown..but rather go by what he sees/hear + personal experinces around + facts..this is the formula for finding truth..all the arguments do give u other side of picture..a muslim perspective..and not what ur corrupt and fictious politically influenced media BOMBARDS on your mind daily...now before you categorizing this as "Unsupported assertions and conspiracy theory ". this is supported by what we see actual and daily we see how media twist the REAL INFO for its own perverted non-social objectives..

When i said islam is growing..i am referring to thousand conversions...not natural population boost..which can be seen and heard, may be not by you but does not mean it does not. which again will force u to think why, inspite of so called muslim terrorism..?
The reason is the truth, which heart feels and it just moves you towards it..
and once you believe...you dont want to ever go back....


And its well acccepted fact amongst majority of sound mind or intellects that that all atheist have dumb thoery....go to doc..or astronomer..or geologist..or physict..all will attribut to god but who is real god remains question that one has to dig himself..when u see the perfection of world of how its created and NOTICE that the mankind is the only one species benefiting...then you know existence of god...Athiest theory is like - An ink bottle dropping on floor and forming oxford dictionary...or...wind brewing in hot desert and building magnificient palace with all the perfect windows/shapes furnitures etc etc...

Dumb/deaf/blind...why dont you believe that god exist and he has perfectly created everything for us...you can never prove atheism as way of life..it never had any basis for sound mind....and if you set ur mind freeee...you will come straight to islam ONLY....Insha Allah and realise that its only peaceful religion that offers full fledge solution of social needs...and we as muslims want this, since only true gods religion has to prevail on earth..and u gotta believe (after researching) that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger, just like jesus/moses/abraham etc etc..
Bikerman
You are babbling now and it is both uninteresting and mildly irritating.
Until you learn the very basics of logic - and an important first step is learning to spot the classical fallacies of logic and debate - then you will continue to whirl around throwing out nonsense and with no coherent point. Your posting is a classic example - starting with more unsupported assertions and ending in a rather child-like half-appeal half-disbelief that the nasty man won't believe you.

You need to support your assertions. I suspect it may be too late because you lost credibility some time back, but for future reference a good rule of thumb is that the more controvertial your claim is, the more evidence you need to provide in support. Verses from the quran can be evidence if the claims concern the quran but for conspiracy theories you need something a bit more concrete than a youtube video and a link to semi-literate and inumerate science criticism.

PS - it is also useful to be able to spot friend from foe. I suggest you look back through the postings on this and other boards. See if you can spot any patterns - like people supporting Islam against unwarranted attacks and conspiracy theorists. See if you can spot which posters have interrupted rants against muslims and unsupported assertions. It is always worth doing a bit of research if you seriously want to attack someone's posting or point of view in a debating environment, because you may find that your initial assessment was based on too small a data sample to be valid. I am not an enemy of Islam any more than I am an enemy of Christianity. Yes, I would like both to die out, I make no bones about it. But they will or not regardless of me, and I will not plant false accusations or distort the truth to that end. I am not interested in compelling people or browbeating people to change their religion. I have no faith to convert them to. I am interested in people who can make coherent claims and/or defences of religion, or even attacks on atheism, and I am always happy to join such debates and challenge the poster - that is how you learn and that is how you spot the fallacy from the fact.

A teacher knows this - it is what teachers do, as you will learn if you ever do take up the challenge of teaching seriously.
nam_siddharth
Bikerman wrote:
There are plenty examples of Buddhist violence.
Japan, at the time of the second world war, had many Buddhists who actively supported, encouraged and participated in the war and many atrocities that followed.
http://vdo.palungjit.com/video/408727/Buddhism-and-Violence-Japan-in-WWII


I will like to know any verse from Buddhism text exiting violence.
arahman
Bikerman wrote:
You are babbling now and it is both uninteresting and mildly irritating.
Until you learn the very basics of logic - and an important first step is learning to spot the classical fallacies of logic and debate - then you will continue to whirl around throwing out nonsense and with no coherent point. Your posting is a classic example - starting with more unsupported assertions and ending in a rather child-like half-appeal half-disbelief that the nasty man won't believe you.

You need to support your assertions. I suspect it may be too late because you lost credibility some time back, but for future reference a good rule of thumb is that the more controvertial your claim is, the more evidence you need to provide in support. Verses from the quran can be evidence if the claims concern the quran but for conspiracy theories you need something a bit more concrete than a youtube video and a link to semi-literate and inumerate science criticism.

PS - it is also useful to be able to spot friend from foe. I suggest you look back through the postings on this and other boards. See if you can spot any patterns - like people supporting Islam against unwarranted attacks and conspiracy theorists. See if you can spot which posters have interrupted rants against muslims and unsupported assertions. It is always worth doing a bit of research if you seriously want to attack someone's posting or point of view in a debating environment, because you may find that your initial assessment was based on too small a data sample to be valid. I am not an enemy of Islam any more than I am an enemy of Christianity. Yes, I would like both to die out, I make no bones about it. But they will or not regardless of me, and I will not plant false accusations or distort the truth to that end. I am not interested in compelling people or browbeating people to change their religion. I have no faith to convert them to. I am interested in people who can make coherent claims and/or defences of religion, or even attacks on atheism, and I am always happy to join such debates and challenge the poster - that is how you learn and that is how you spot the fallacy from the fact.

A teacher knows this - it is what teachers do, as you will learn if you ever do take up the challenge of teaching seriously.


Man....I can understand your frustation and irritation from ur this response !! you are not able to answer or handle even basic logical and rational question posed to you...not even one......even a 1st grade child could have answered true to most....but just throwing ball all around the court on some other postings and trying to deviate from the context....i know its classic strategy...if you aint convince them then confuse them......you love to stick to your "argumentum ad populum" and yet you make an invalid and unproven claim to be professor of logical and fallicies studies

You will not believe anything......because you dont want to...remember mental block...

Unsupported assertions ?? most of them are backed by logical/rational/real exp..not just media bombardment....

We cannot force anybody to convert...but if somebody blind is walking towards abyss..then by default we try our best to save him.. & thats what we are doing...we will continue to assist by passing out the true message...as our beloved prophets Mohammand (PBUH), Jesus, Abraham, moses did...whether you believe or not beleive does not make any difference....Islam will prevail and will not die to bones just because some infidel want...and it is a peaceful enough and is and was strong enough always to sustain itself..(Enough said already..)

I remember this famous quote of our respected scholar...Iman Ash-Shafiee."I have never debated with any knowledgeable person except that I won the debate, and i have never debated with a ignorant person except that I lost"....and you win !

Hoping that you recover soon from this mythomania..GOD IS ONE AND HE IS ALLAH ALONE AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER..and proofs are all in ONE BOOK called AL-QURAN.. Go study it
truespeed
arahman wrote:


Hoping that you recover soon from this mythomania..GOD IS ONE AND HE IS ALLAH ALONE AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER..and proofs are all in ONE BOOK called AL-QURAN.. Go study it


THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD,THE CHRISTIAN GOD,.JESUS WAS HIS MESSENGER.. and proofs are all in ONE BOOK called THE BIBLE.. Go Study.

^^^

I don't actually believe what i wrote above,but it shows how ridiculous what you wrote is.

I am kind of with liljp617 on this,i think your just on here to bait.
deanhills
arahman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
arahman wrote:

You dont seem to understand awahab point AT ALL...You came back to same point from where it all started....
I understood it perfectly. You are holding one view of Islam as the one that you say is the definitive view, and you have quoted scripture to that effect. At the same time there are a very large number of terrorist organizations who also maintain their view is the definitive view of Islam, and they also quote scripture to justify their actions. The fact that there are two opposing views in the same religion, is already a sign of conflict, and non-peaceful. There is not a united front. Also, somewhere you would need to take a very clear position against the terror side of Islam, which I have not seen anyone doing on a large and public scale. I.e. say publicly and very strongly to those Muslim organizations who are pursuing terrorism that they are not of the Islam faith. Publicly deny that they are Muslims. If peaceful Muslims can do that, then you can ask us to have an open mind, but you can't have it both ways. Say you are peaceful and of the real faith, and ignore other Muslims who also say they are of the faith, but have made a very public stand for violence based on the Islamic faith. There is nothing open-minded about that.


Before offering you some clarity of so called mis-interprated islamic voilence.............I want to understand your beliefs in god or do you believe god exists. For a time being lets park this subject aside...and trust me this is closely and deeply connected with our subject...a peaceful religion...there is reason for everything and there is nothing called coincidence or chance....and voilence for good cause is good.....simple example...sometimes we are forced to use stick to discipline our childrens...the disciplining entitiy can change wrt subject and magnitude of would to be results of the cause....!!!
Now you are side-tracting from the discussion. Which is about your claim that Islam is the most peaceful religion in the world. You have not successfully defended that yet. As there are a large group of Muslims who have violence and war as their goal, publicly stated for everyone to hear. You have not said much about that either. As far as I know, this is not a personal discussion, it has to do with facts. You have not succeeded in bringing any factual evidence to the table yet, with regard to your statement that Islam is the most peaceful religion in the world.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
arahman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
arahman wrote:

You dont seem to understand awahab point AT ALL...You came back to same point from where it all started....
I understood it perfectly. You are holding one view of Islam as the one that you say is the definitive view, and you have quoted scripture to that effect. At the same time there are a very large number of terrorist organizations who also maintain their view is the definitive view of Islam, and they also quote scripture to justify their actions. The fact that there are two opposing views in the same religion, is already a sign of conflict, and non-peaceful. There is not a united front. Also, somewhere you would need to take a very clear position against the terror side of Islam, which I have not seen anyone doing on a large and public scale. I.e. say publicly and very strongly to those Muslim organizations who are pursuing terrorism that they are not of the Islam faith. Publicly deny that they are Muslims. If peaceful Muslims can do that, then you can ask us to have an open mind, but you can't have it both ways. Say you are peaceful and of the real faith, and ignore other Muslims who also say they are of the faith, but have made a very public stand for violence based on the Islamic faith. There is nothing open-minded about that.


Before offering you some clarity of so called mis-interprated islamic voilence.............I want to understand your beliefs in god or do you believe god exists. For a time being lets park this subject aside...and trust me this is closely and deeply connected with our subject...a peaceful religion...there is reason for everything and there is nothing called coincidence or chance....and voilence for good cause is good.....simple example...sometimes we are forced to use stick to discipline our childrens...the disciplining entitiy can change wrt subject and magnitude of would to be results of the cause....!!!
As there are a large group of Muslims who have violence and war as their goal, publicly stated for everyone to hear.


The issue is he doesn't accept this, even when it's smacking him in the nose. Therefore, I've decided this isn't worth the time. I hope you join me soon or you may feel the urge to hit a wall if this discussion continues Smile
truespeed
Just to point out,there are two similar looking usernames,arahman and awahab,promoting Islam in this thread,just so nobody else gets confused and mixes up their points of view (Even though they are pretty much the same)
Bikerman
nam_siddharth wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
There are plenty examples of Buddhist violence.
Japan, at the time of the second world war, had many Buddhists who actively supported, encouraged and participated in the war and many atrocities that followed.
http://vdo.palungjit.com/video/408727/Buddhism-and-Violence-Japan-in-WWII


I will like to know any verse from Buddhism text exiting violence.

You are making the same category error that is common throughout this thread. It isn't just about what the scripture or historical documents say. The Old Testament is full of horrendous violence but that doesn't mean that Christians or Jews or Muslims are, by definition, violent. The fact that Buddhist texts are not full of violence, by the same obvious logic, does not mean that Buddhist are non-violent.
I have asserted categorically that many Zen Buddhists were guilty of war crimes and that the temples and leaders were fully complicit with the totalitarian imperial regime. That, to my mind, demolishes the claim that Buddhists have not been involved in violence. To say that verses from Buddhism don't contain violence is entirely irrelevant. If you want to say I am wrong then produce some evidence that I am wrong. As far as I know many Buddhists (including a good friend of mine) are quite clear about what happened in Japan and, whilst they are in no way responsible, do not try to deny history.
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenBookReviews/ZenWarStories_Nelson.htm
yagnyavalkya
Coclus wrote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.

All religions are peaceful unless the texts of the regligion ask the followers to go to war
The followers of the religion decided whether the religion is peaceful or not.
Bikerman
No I don't agree. You are defining religion as simply some or all of the scriptural text. Religion is more than that. It is a set of common practices and beliefs which evolve over time. It is also the sum of the management/membership/clerics/hierarchy. The Roman Catholic religion is not the bible. It is the bible plus the pope plus the vatican plus the cardinals and priests plus.......etc.

Now, when considered in that light then I contend that no religion is peaceful - all have incidents or even long periods when the body of the church has been guilty of violence of an unjustified nature.
I don't meant that a few Catholics sinning makes the religion sinful - there has to be some institutional support for the violence before I would attribute it to the religion rather than just a few individuals (or alternatively the body of the church might remain silent in the face of such actions by some of the membership in which case it is equally culpable).
To date we have Buddhism with perhaps the best claim, though, as I say, the actions of Zen Buddhists, their leaders and temple congregations in Japan certainly does not count as peaceful in my eyes.
yagnyavalkya
Bikerman wrote:
No I don't agree. You are defining religion as simply some or all of the scriptural text. Religion is more than that. It is a set of common practices and beliefs which evolve over time. It is also the sum of the management/membership/clerics/hierarchy. The Roman Catholic religion is not the bible. It is the bible plus the pope plus the vatican plus the cardinals and priests plus.......etc.

Now, when considered in that light then I contend that no religion is peaceful - all have incidents or even long periods when the body of the church has been guilty of violence of an unjustified nature.
I don't meant that a few Catholics sinning makes the religion sinful - there has to be some institutional support for the violence before I would attribute it to the religion rather than just a few individuals (or alternatively the body of the church might remain silent in the face of such actions by some of the membership in which case it is equally culpable).
To date we have Buddhism with perhaps the best claim, though, as I say, the actions of Zen Buddhists, their leaders and temple congregations in Japan certainly does not count as peaceful in my eyes.

I meant the difference between the religion and the followers
Actually consider this statement for example
X religion is peaceful religion but people following X religion are going to war does that make X religion not peaceful?
Bikerman
Yes, if the leaders of those followers are the leaders of the religion, then yes I think it does.
Bikerman
Consider the question another way.
I am a socialist. If the leaders of international socialism suddenly redefined the movement to be entirely capitalist in economic outlook and the members did nothing to stop it, then socialism would mean something different. We would have essentially redefined a term which used to mean one thing and now means another.....same for religion methinks.
yagnyavalkya
Can we blame the actions of the followers of a religion on the religion itself?
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Can we blame the actions of the followers of a religion on the religion itself?
Yes, to some extent. But attaching blame to abstractions and concepts is not really sensible anyway - one doesn't blame the weather when it rains (or one shouldn't). Blame and responsibility only really make sense when attached to people I think..
Tommyfromneverland
awahab wrote:
To me Buddhism cannot be considered as a religion at all in the first place (I will debate about other religion in a different post though). It's all about meditation and brining peace and tranquility to one's own self (that's what the claim is - I refute that too)... To define anything as a religion we have to go it's sciptures and see what it has to offer to humanity as a whole. The solutions to man's day to day problems.

Bottomline: Buddhism is not a religion


I think you are wrong! Buddhism is not only dealing with meditation and tranquility plus philosophy. It is more than that. Buddhism teaches us about our karma, the cause of karma, and how to deal with it. No phylosophy (in the west) teaches that thing. So it is a religion because we believe in the teaching. Of course the term "religion" maybe different from your or other people's term of religion. For you and other people, the term religion is the teaching that come from God, regardless it is true or just a bullshit. You can't prove your prophet Muhammad was really a prophet and his teaching came from God. Neither the Christians can prove that their Bible is the word of God and Jesus was the son of God. It is just the BELIEF, you can't prove it. Same thing I believe that Buddha had reached enlightment and all his sayings in Tripitaka are correct but I can't prove it because it is just my BELIEF. But at least Buddha taught us how to use our brain and not only follow what he said. This is very different from Judaism, Christianity and Islam where everybody should believe in what is written in their holy books eventhough some of the contents make no sense at all. And they do this (believe) because they are afraid that they will go to hell if they don't. It smells like dictators and it is very different from Buddhism (democracy). And I believe this is the main cause of the wars between all the religions in the world except Buddhism, why? It is very simple. Buddha asked his followers to use their brain while Muhammad, Jesus, Noah, Moses, and the other prophets failed to do so.
yagnyavalkya
All religions are supposed to be peaceful
nam_siddharth
yagnyavalkya wrote:
All religions are supposed to be peaceful


And why you think so? In reality most religions are not.
faru4u
as regards buddhism now we all know what it is clearly from the scene created at myanmar burma..
Few peoples who are deaf and blind or dey are trying to be then talk to me if they can read any language ill write them about the scene
Hello_World
If you take alone only what the religion and its followers are supposed to do, then Buddhism is the most peaceful.

There are also some other very peaceful religions that I haven't looked much into, like Janism and such. Perhaps they are more peaceful.

But then, like the more violent religions such as Chrisitianity and Islam, not all followers adhere to the principles.

On the other hand, unlike Christianity and Islam, I have come across nothing that can possibly justify harm in any Buddhist teachings so far.

In fact I would like it if someone knew the rationale that Buddhists have used to justify their actions when they have fought with other groups.

Nevertheless, on the basis that so far as I know, harm cannot be justified by the teachings of Buddhism, it is the most peaceful.
Bikerman
info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Buddhism
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/14/bangkok-violent-buddhists-opinions-contributors-thailand-cambodia-burma.html
Afaceinthematrix
I haven't read this topic in the entirety and so I am not sure what other people have said, however, I will give my own two cents and answer (sort of) the original post.

To me, trying to determine the most peaceful religion is a lot like trying to determine the least deadly form of cancer.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I haven't read this topic in the entirety and so I am not sure what other people have said, however, I will give my own two cents and answer (sort of) the original post.

To me, trying to determine the most peaceful religion is a lot like trying to determine the least deadly form of cancer.
Does that then mean by exclusion that being an atheist is the most peaceful existence there is? That does sound ridiculous however, doesn't it? Stereotyping like this is not scientific. So can't be true.
Malinda
Coclus wrote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.


YOU ARE CORRECT! I wouldn't say it is Buddhism as I'm half Buddhist and half Christian. However, I'm willing to go against Christianity and Islam because they always try to get people to convert forcefully. The way someone said, actually no, they have a choice to work or join if they don't accept to serrender. How can one be so casual about such a thing? In my opinion, every religion itself is peaceful, but the people in the religion ruin it. The way Muslims think that Allah is the only one and true god is wrong. Or the fact that they say Islam is the only true religion. You have no right to say such a thing! Kik me at xXxMalindAxXx if you disagree Smile
Malinda
Tommyfromneverland wrote:
awahab wrote:
To me Buddhism cannot be considered as a religion at all in the first place (I will debate about other religion in a different post though). It's all about meditation and brining peace and tranquility to one's own self (that's what the claim is - I refute that too)... To define anything as a religion we have to go it's sciptures and see what it has to offer to humanity as a whole. The solutions to man's day to day problems.

Bottomline: Buddhism is not a religion


I think you are wrong! Buddhism is not only dealing with meditation and tranquility plus philosophy. It is more than that. Buddhism teaches us about our karma, the cause of karma, and how to deal with it. No phylosophy (in the west) teaches that thing. So it is a religion because we believe in the teaching. Of course the term "religion" maybe different from your or other people's term of religion. For you and other people, the term religion is the teaching that come from God, regardless it is true or just a bullshit. You can't prove your prophet Muhammad was really a prophet and his teaching came from God. Neither the Christians can prove that their Bible is the word of God and Jesus was the son of God. It is just the BELIEF, you can't prove it. Same thing I believe that Buddha had reached enlightment and all his sayings in Tripitaka are correct but I can't prove it because it is just my BELIEF. But at least Buddha taught us how to use our brain and not only follow what he said. This is very different from Judaism, Christianity and Islam where everybody should believe in what is written in their holy books eventhough some of the contents make no sense at all. And they do this (believe) because they are afraid that they will go to hell if they don't. It smells like dictators and it is very different from Buddhism (democracy). And I believe this is the main cause of the wars between all the religions in the world except Buddhism, why? It is very simple. Buddha asked his followers to use their brain while Muhammad, Jesus, Noah, Moses, and the other prophets failed to do so.



You, my friend, is a genius! If only others understood that. I think exactly the same Smile we need more people like you... More common sense and everything Very Happy
codegeek
The most peaceful religion is the one that has no followers.
LxGoodies
My two cents on the subject

Peace is not getting angry at each other.

Most religions say god will punish you for anger, but Buddha gets right to the core of the problem itself, which is YOU..



.. as Carlos Castaneda did, when he said

“Think about it: what weakens us is feeling offended by the deeds and misdeeds of our fellow men. Our self-importance requires that we spend most of our lives offended by someone.”

― Carlos Castaneda, Fire from Within

For me, peace itself is religion and striving for peace is practicing that religion.

Lx
zimmer
any religion has its own peaceful way. this depends on how you understand and deal with your personality.
Bikerman
LxGoodies wrote:
My two cents on the subject

Peace is not getting angry at each other.

That is both wrong and unrealistic. Peace is not ACTING against each other - anger does not always lead to action and the idea that people can avoid getting angry is either silly or sinister - or both.
Quote:
Most religions say god will punish you for anger,
Really? Name ONE that says that?
Quote:
but Buddha gets right to the core of the problem itself, which is YOU..
It is EASY to do that sort of thing - it is also entirely platitudinous.
Bikerman gets to the heart of domestic violence:
"Don't be violent to your spouse"!

There we are - now worship me you lesser beings, for I am 'the source'..

Doesn't fly, does it?

I also have a problem with the whole notion of 'peace'? That can easily mean 'status quo'. If 'peace' were the crucial thing and anger a bad thing then Blacks would be slaves, the working class would be bought and sold by Capitalist overlords, women would have no franchise.....etc etc etc
Anger drives change and change is NOT peace....
Bluedoll
LxGoodies wrote:

Peace is not getting angry at each other.

For me, peace itself is religion and striving for peace is practicing that religion.

I am not sure I can agree completely though I do agree many religions do promote peace and understanding.

The early Inca’s for example conquered and required human sacrifice in the name of religion. There are many examples of organized movement using religion for selfish reasons. A modern day example of a movement which does not promote peace might be atheism? There are many that might argue atheism is a not a religion but it does behave as one and does not seem very peaceful to me at times. Question

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the individual to follow some kind of conscious, and understanding, which is, their religion, a particular personal social character.
Bikerman
Still posting bigoted rubbish I see.
we don't argue that atheism isn't a religion, we KNOW it isn't and there is no argument to be had. Only ignorant people TRY to argue that it IS.
Please give me examples - say in the last 3 or 4 decades* - of atheism being 'not peaceful'.

*It would be rude to ask your age, so I'm assuming you have noticed these examples some time in the last 30 years or so....
LxGoodies
Bikerman wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
My two cents on the subject

Peace is not getting angry at each other.

That is both wrong and unrealistic. Peace is not ACTING against each other - anger does not always lead to action and the idea that people can avoid getting angry is either silly or sinister - or both.

It does not matter for this saying, if all anger leads to action.. action (e.g. war) origins from anger..

Quote:
Quote:
Most religions say god will punish you for anger,
Really? Name ONE that says that?

christianity and islam, as far as I know. Plus all religions that project some kind of afterlife. There are always sanctions involved, like reincarnating "lower" or "higher".

Quote:
Quote:
but Buddha gets right to the core of the problem itself, which is YOU..
It is EASY to do that sort of thing - it is also entirely platitudinous.
Bikerman gets to the heart of domestic violence:
"Don't be violent to your spouse"!

Haha indeed.. that's what Buddha is all about. Obvious thruth. So obvious that guru's can earn their money everywhere on this world and spread their message.

Quote:
There we are - now worship me you lesser beings, for I am 'the source'..

Doesn't fly, does it?

Hmm I find sometimes it's nice to contemplate on these Sutra's.. there's wisdom in affirmation/negation polarities, like finding the grey between black and white.

Quote:
I also have a problem with the whole notion of 'peace'? That can easily mean 'status quo'. If 'peace' were the crucial thing and anger a bad thing then Blacks would be slaves, the working class would be bought and sold by Capitalist overlords, women would have no franchise.....etc etc etc
Anger drives change and change is NOT peace....

There are other things that drive change.. e.g. creativity
andro_king
Coclus wrote:
What do you think is the most peaceful religion?
I'm sure it's the buddhism! The islam was spread with force. The christs
say they love their enemies but they tried to invade Jerusalem and drive out all muslims. The jews were mostly victims but in early middleage they knew to defend themselves. The Hinduism was also the reason for some wars. What`s left is the buddhism! There is nothing a buddhist may fight for as the aim is to reach nirvana and as a consequence forget desires and wishes.


Hinduism is the most peaceful religion.
Bikerman
LxGoodies wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
My two cents on the subject

Peace is not getting angry at each other.

That is both wrong and unrealistic. Peace is not ACTING against each other - anger does not always lead to action and the idea that people can avoid getting angry is either silly or sinister - or both.

It does not matter for this saying, if all anger leads to action.. action (e.g. war) origins from anger..
Nope, a totally unjustified and demonstrably wrong assumption. Clearly all anger does NOT lead to action, or are you unable to think of occasions when YOU have NOT acted, even though you were angry? I can think of plenty - daily...
The assertion that all anger leads to action is plainly wrong (even though it DOES increase the tendency to do something - which is GOOD), and the idea that all (or even many) wars result from anger is actually not one I can properly get a handle on. I don't even think the statement is coherent - it certainly sounds like an example of an apparently wise and profound saying that is actually so un-profound it can't even be said to be wrong - it isn't close enough to be wrong. Just WHO would be the angry person who starts the War? Does just one person count if they are completely LIVID? So if Obama is steaming mad then that means War? Or could we score 100 people who were pretty pissed-off? Or maybe 1% of the population who were quite annoyed? Or perhaps 10% of the population who were a bit put out? Or 50% of the population who thought it was jolly rude and bad mannered?
The whole framework of the assertion is, as this is designed to show, ridiculous.
Let's take wars that my own country has fought recently:
With Argentina over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas
First Gulf War
Afghanistan
2nd Gulf war -> Iraq

How many of these resulted from 'anger'? The question isn't coherent and therefore admits of no answer, let alone causal relationship. What happens is for some political or economic or reason of mutuality (treaty or other agreement), then it becomes necessary to fight. THEN we get the propoganda machine trying to make us hate the enemy. We invented it - the ministry of propoganda was a British creation - they were quite open about it and saw nothing dodgy or wrong in it. The idea was to make us hate Germans in both WW1 and 2. We didn't, because the Germans were pretty much like us, so we had to be taught to hate them with a re3lentless propoganda effort, coupled to social/peer pressure to conform. The same with Agentina, the same with Iraq, the same ....and on and on. The hate comes AFTER, not BEFORE.
Quote:

christianity and islam, as far as I know. Plus all religions that project some kind of afterlife. There are always sanctions involved, like reincarnating "lower" or "higher".
Nope. There is NOTHING in Christian dogma that I know of that forbids anger. Anger is an emotion. How, exactly, do you intend to forbid it?

The quran refereces anger as the bible does - I seem to remember one of the Suras talks about the need for Judges to not be angry when judging - which seems sensible. But anger itself isn't a sin As I said, I think the very idea is sinister.
Have you read Orwell? 1984? THAT society tried to get rid of anger (or claimed it, to be more accurate). They did it in the only way I can imagine would possibly 'work' - ferocious indoctrination, compulsory mass drugging of the population, and 'directional venting' organised by the Ministry of Peace (which takes the form of a perpetual War which allows the population to direct their hate onto nameless foreign enemies who, in reality, need no actually exist.

It is deeply dodgy to suggest emotionally crippling people, in my opinion. I LIKE my anger, I NEED my anger sometimes, and the idea that someone might try to take it from me makes me REALLY ANGRY.
Quote:
There are other things that drive change.. e.g. creativity
But none are NEARLY as effective. I cannot think of any major social advance that was NOT dependant, in very large part, on the anger that people felt at the basic unfairness that the system imposed. A bunch of 'creative types' might be useful for stoking up the anger, but it is anger that drove every important social change that I can remember, from the end of Apartheid to real attempts to improve minority treatment and push forward an equality agenda. Gay men didn't get the debate moving by arranging coffee mornings and offering fashion advice to their straight but dowdy friends. My gay friends DO both of those, but change required people to gey angry enough about the basic unfairness of the bigotry to be willing to tell 'the man' to go boil his head.

I don't even think anger is the right target. I get angry with people I love probably much more than with strangers or distant friends of friends. Getting angry means you are bothered, you care.

Here's a much better and much less sinister Koan from a much wiser person than Buddha - Granny Weatherwax.

Quote:
GW. There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.
Cleric. It’s a lot more complicated than that—”
GW. No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they are getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
Cleric. Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes—”
GW. But they starts with thinking about people as things . . .

If you want to make people hate and kill other people, don't make then angry, that doesn't do it, because anger is often too fleeting and cannot be sustained. Anway it is rarely enough.
If you want to do it then make then regard the 'others' as 'other' in the sense of not quite human, not the same as us, a lower existence, a lesser race, THEN you have them - they will be much happier torturing and killing things, not quite humans.
Queiros
i think all religion are pacific.
Are mens who create wars, and use religion as an excuse Smile
LxGoodies
Bikerman wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
My two cents on the subject

Peace is not getting angry at each other.

That is both wrong and unrealistic. Peace is not ACTING against each other - anger does not always lead to action and the idea that people can avoid getting angry is either silly or sinister - or both.

It does not matter for this saying, if all anger leads to action.. action (e.g. war) origins from anger..
Nope, a totally unjustified and demonstrably wrong assumption. Clearly all anger does NOT lead to action, or are you unable to think of occasions when YOU have NOT acted, even though you were angry? I can think of plenty - daily...
The assertion that all anger leads to action is plainly wrong (even though it DOES increase the tendency to do something - which is GOOD),

..of course not all anger leads to action, my position was that anger is needed for action, or to sustain action.

Bikerman wrote:
and the idea that all (or even many) wars result from anger is actually not one I can properly get a handle on. I don't even think the statement is coherent - it certainly sounds like an example of an apparently wise and profound saying that is actually so un-profound it can't even be said to be wrong - it isn't close enough to be wrong.

Hmm. You need a lot of words to say "You are wrong". Suppose a war is started with a secret agenda, involving personal gain for the leader instead of anger. The leader, not being angry, still needs anger (of others) to start his war, because his true intentions must be kept secret. So he needs a pretext (or propaganda) to invoke anger. In a sense, anger is always needed to start war, get it going..

Bikerman wrote:
Just WHO would be the angry person who starts the War? Does just one person count if they are completely LIVID? So if Obama is steaming mad then that means War? Or could we score 100 people who were pretty pissed-off? Or maybe 1% of the population who were quite annoyed? Or perhaps 10% of the population who were a bit put out? Or 50% of the population who thought it was jolly rude and bad mannered? The whole framework of the assertion is, as this is designed to show, ridiculous.

Ok, let's assume in the modern world, individuals don't start wars. Agree. As opposed to individuals, you consider if war is started, because angry population statistics dictate it. You find that rediculous. Now in a democracy, collective anger can be turn out dangerous. In Germany it happened in 1933. Hitler succeeded to impose his personal anger on Germany. And the German people elected him, because they were made angry by him. Angry at jews, angry at the former WW-I opponents. So in the case of Nazi Germany it is not that absurd to assume personal anger of a leader, and the collective anger resulting from that can cause a war.

Quote:
Let's take wars that my own country has fought recently:
With Argentina over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas
First Gulf War
Afghanistan
2nd Gulf war -> Iraq

How many of these resulted from 'anger'? The question isn't coherent and therefore admits of no answer, let alone causal relationship. What happens is for some political or economic or reason of mutuality (treaty or other agreement), then it becomes necessary to fight. THEN we get the propoganda machine trying to make us hate the enemy. We invented it - the ministry of propoganda was a British creation - they were quite open about it and saw nothing dodgy or wrong in it. The idea was to make us hate Germans in both WW1 and 2. We didn't, because the Germans were pretty much like us, so we had to be taught to hate them with a re3lentless propoganda effort, coupled to social/peer pressure to conform. The same with Agentina, the same with Iraq, the same ....and on and on. The hate comes AFTER, not BEFORE.

Afghanistan was inspired by revenge (for 9/11) Britain did not start WW-II, Germany did. And I recall ms Thatcher was quite pissed of about the Argies invading her dear Falklands. In general, Ms Thatcher seemed a person who succeeded to put up her anger to good political use. And at the time, the whole world became very angry at mr Saddam for using chemical weapons in Halabja. In the end, the war against Saddam wasn'nt caused by anger, it turned out it was manipulated by mr Powell, letting us believe that Saddam had nukes. Anger is not always the cause of war, it helps to organize and sustain war. And when the system is democratic, propaganda counts. It invokes anger.

Quote:
Quote:
christianity and islam, as far as I know. Plus all religions that project some kind of afterlife. There are always sanctions involved, like reincarnating "lower" or "higher".
Nope. There is NOTHING in Christian dogma that I know of that forbids anger. Anger is an emotion. How, exactly, do you intend to forbid it?

The quran refereces anger as the bible does - I seem to remember one of the Suras talks about the need for Judges to not be angry when judging - which seems sensible. But anger itself isn't a sin As I said, I think the very idea is sinister.
Have you read Orwell? 1984? THAT society tried to get rid of anger (or claimed it, to be more accurate). They did it in the only way I can imagine would possibly 'work' - ferocious indoctrination, compulsory mass drugging of the population, and 'directional venting' organised by the Ministry of Peace (which takes the form of a perpetual War which allows the population to direct their hate onto nameless foreign enemies who, in reality, need no actually exist.
It is deeply dodgy to suggest emotionally crippling people, in my opinion. I LIKE my anger, I NEED my anger sometimes, and the idea that someone might try to take it from me makes me REALLY ANGRY.

Don't know about these holy book details. Holy books don't interest me. What strikes me in the story is that Jezus turns the other cheek (avoiding conflict) and the good imam tells us that islam is peace. That's all.. and I read Orwell, I did NOT advocate forbidding or surpressing -your- -apparently justified- anger in any way. I just cited the Buddha, who invites us to reflect and cool down. And Castaneda, whose observation feels right. People spend far too much time on angryness toward others and sometimes forget to live their own lives.

Modern world religions don't determine peace or war anyway. Oil and money do, and the angryness is a result of propaganda, sustaining and sometimes causing war.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There are other things that drive change.. e.g. creativity
But none are NEARLY as effective. I cannot think of any major social advance that was NOT dependant, in very large part, on the anger that people felt at the basic unfairness that the system imposed. A bunch of 'creative types' might be useful for stoking up the anger, but it is anger that drove every important social change that I can remember, from the end of Apartheid to real attempts to improve minority treatment and push forward an equality agenda. Gay men didn't get the debate moving by arranging coffee mornings and offering fashion advice to their straight but dowdy friends. My gay friends DO both of those, but change required people to gey angry enough about the basic unfairness of the bigotry to be willing to tell 'the man' to go boil his head.

I did not say all anger is bad. You may even consider gay emancipation as a cultural war. Which was not bad Smile But there is a lot that changed in that respect. I don't know about your country but here, fashion and other achievements of gay people did contribute a lot. The initial phase was anger indeed, the finishing touch seems to be culture and (acknowledgement) of value, merit and appreciation..

Quote:
I don't even think anger is the right target. I get angry with people I love probably much more than with strangers or distant friends of friends. Getting angry means you are bothered, you care.

Here's a much better and much less sinister Koan from a much wiser person than Buddha - Granny Weatherwax.

Quote:
GW. There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.
Cleric. It’s a lot more complicated than that—”
GW. No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they are getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
Cleric. Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes—”
GW. But they starts with thinking about people as things . . .

If you want to make people hate and kill other people, don't make then angry, that doesn't do it, because anger is often too fleeting and cannot be sustained. Anway it is rarely enough.
If you want to do it then make then regard the 'others' as 'other' in the sense of not quite human, not the same as us, a lower existence, a lesser race, THEN you have them - they will be much happier torturing and killing things, not quite humans.

ahh of course the observation of Granny Weatherwax is very true. However when de-humanization occurs, it is already too late: the notion of "regarding people as things" is always caused by something, that is irrational anger and fear. In the same WW-II context: Jews became demonized by nazi propaganda.. legalizing any type of anger against them, such as the murderous rage of Kristallnacht. In this stage, the demon is not a human person anymore.. maybe grammy Weatherwax is always right, because she opposes war itself.. which is in essence always de-humanizing the opponent. Else we would not be able to kill our fellow men in massive numbers.
Bikerman
Your basic thesis is just wrong.
Firstly, you have, I think, changed position and accepted my critique. You started with 'peace is not getting angry with each other'. You then say that 'not all anger leads to action'. The two are not compatible. There is peace and not peace (which we can call war, or we can graduate on some scale). If peace is defined by (or is equivalent to) not getting angry, it follows that getting angry means not peace...
Then you say 'Anger is not always the cause of war'...ie you have now accepted my point. My interjection was prompted by the assertion that Buddha was wise and that his saying about anger was correct because anger leads to war. My objection was twofold - firstly it doesn't and secondly it produces positives as well as, sometimes, negatives and that the Buddha's saying, if taken generally, would lead to a civilisation that I would hate (if I was allowed to get angry). I see nothing to indicate that my objection was wrong....

Secondly, no, the leader does NOT require anger to start a war. We have a professional military which will follow the orders of the executive. To maintain a war DOES require some measure of support from the voting public (or more accurately it requires the voting public not to oppose the war in too large a number to handle politically).

Thirdly, the idea that Thatcher was 'angry' with the Argentinians and that this was necessary to start the war, well, that is very naive. Thatcher was in political trouble - terminal trouble. She was bound to loose the forthcoming election. The invasion was her lifeline. She played the card that has been played by political leaders in extremis since politics was invented - she played the nationalistic/jingoism card. Ironically that was the card played by Galtieri which prompted the Argentinian invasion. She might have been genuinely angry, or she might have faked it - we will never know for sure. One thing we CAN know is that being angry was neither necessary nor particularly relevant to her decision to invade - it was politically inevitable.

You say that Germany started WW2. Well, that can be debated endlessly. Certainly the part of that war that involved Britain was prompted by the invasion of Poland. And do you think that Germans were pissed-off with the Polish? Britain did not have to declare war. Britain CHOSE to declare war - and do you think that the decision was inspired by anger? It wasn't. It resulted from a pragmatic political calculation.

I conclusion, I will agree with you on one point - anger is often necessary (with the 'often' becoming 'always' over a longer timescale) to maintain a war in a 'democratic' nation. Democracies cannot be ruled by fear alone - although fear is still very important and a widely used tool. In a democracy you need to manufacture consent (to use Chomsky's phrase). This is done with the collision of mass media, and particularly the few media organs that can be regarded as crucial to 'opinion forming'. That would include the BBC in the UK, ABC/CBS/NBC in the US and similar 'respected' organs of the media in other countries. One method is to generate anger, but this method is problematic and is not always the first choice. Having demonized the 'enemy' and generated the anger required to elicit political support for action, the problem is that this has to be reversed once the action is no longer necessary/possible. If we stick with the example of WW2, after the war ended we (UK) had to deal with the hatred of Germans that had been successfully instilled in most of the population. In the US there was a similar hatred of Japanese (which makes the subsequent MacArthur-led occupation policies all the more admirable and far-sighted).

On the main point, however, I disagree profoundly. Anger is a necessary emotion. It evolved for good evolutionary reasons, and it can be problematic for our modern society with large population densities. Where an individual cannot control anger then it can lead to an immediate 'lash-out' and I would certainly agree that this is never good and nearly always bad. Most of us, however, can get angry without allowing that anger to dictate our actions. Most of us are 'civilised' enough to control our anger in all but the most extreme circumstances - indeed if this were NOT the case then it is unlikely that we would be talking right now, because I cannot see how civilisation would have developed without that ability to control anger.
LxGoodies
Interesting answer..
Bikerman wrote:
Your basic thesis is just wrong.
Firstly, you have, I think, changed position and accepted my critique. You started with 'peace is not getting angry with each other'. You then say that 'not all anger leads to action'. The two are not compatible. There is peace and not peace (which we can call war, or we can graduate on some scale). If peace is defined by (or is equivalent to) not getting angry, it follows that getting angry means not peace...

Your critique prompted me to explain and elaborate on my thesis. I think it is our language difference that caused you to assume I changed position. I did not.

At first, you objected by assuming that my starting point "peace is not getting angry with eachother" would imply "every anger leads to action/war". We agree that was not the case, but there is a negation in there: when no one gets angry, no one is inclined to war. That's my thesis. Now it may occur, that someone gets angry without causing a conflict (or war, or any action), that is trivial.

Quote:
Then you say 'Anger is not always the cause of war'...ie you have now accepted my point.

Yes. The point where wee seem to meet, is anger not always causes war AND war is not always caused by anger. But same time I maintain that anger is needed to sustain war. Without anger, it would be e.g. very difficult to motivate soldiers to de-humanize the enemy and kill effectively.

Quote:
My interjection was prompted by the assertion that Buddha was wise and that his saying about anger was correct because anger leads to war.


I did *not* say that. Buddha only said anger wil get back at us. We damage ourselves, maintaining our anger. My implication was Buddha advocates peace, saying that, because anger is a prerogative, a condition for (sustaining) war.

Quote:
My objection was twofold - firstly it doesn't and secondly it produces positives as well as, sometimes, negatives and that the Buddha's saying, if taken generally, would lead to a civilisation that I would hate (if I was allowed to get angry). I see nothing to indicate that my objection was wrong....

I agree that anger can serve a purpose. In that sense I do not agree with the Buddha, who seems to simply state that all anger is wrong, that is all anger will backfire.. Although it will, anger will not always cause war and is sometimes neccesary. My thesis was that Buddha advocates peace, because absence of anger would disable war.

Quote:
Secondly, no, the leader does NOT require anger to start a war. We have a professional military which will follow the orders of the executive. To maintain a war DOES require some measure of support from the voting public (or more accurately it requires the voting public not to oppose the war in too large a number to handle politically).

Here, we disagree. The leader needs his population and his party members and his military to become angry. Else there will be no war. If the military does not see the purpose of a war, the war cannot be fought effectively. A command structure alone does not suffice to sustain war. Vietnam has clearly shown that. Some wars cannot be sustained.

Quote:
Thirdly, the idea that Thatcher was 'angry' with the Argentinians and that this was necessary to start the war, well, that is very naive. Thatcher was in political trouble - terminal trouble. She was bound to loose the forthcoming election. The invasion was her lifeline. She played the card that has been played by political leaders in extremis since politics was invented - she played the nationalistic/jingoism card. Ironically that was the card played by Galtieri which prompted the Argentinian invasion. She might have been genuinely angry, or she might have faked it - we will never know for sure. One thing we CAN know is that being angry was neither necessary nor particularly relevant to her decision to invade - it was politically inevitable.

You're the expert on English politics, Bikerman.. the incentive Thatcher had to declare war on Argentina may not have required real anger on her side. However, what I remember of the Falkland war.. the Argentine invasion certainly invoked anger in the UK. Whether she faked her own anger or not, she even succeeded in exporting it to my country. At least, most Dutch felt Thatcher was right in fighting the Argentinian invasion.

Quote:
You say that Germany started WW2. Well, that can be debated endlessly. Certainly the part of that war that involved Britain was prompted by the invasion of Poland. And do you think that Germans were pissed-off with the Polish? Britain did not have to declare war. Britain CHOSE to declare war - and do you think that the decision was inspired by anger? It wasn't. It resulted from a pragmatic political calculation.

WW2 is not only about England and Germany. I tend to defend the position Hitler started WW2 by invading Tschechia in 1938. With near 100% of support by the german population, because he fed the anger about "Sudetendeutsche" not having any German soil to live on.

Quote:
I conclusion, I will agree with you on one point - anger is often necessary (with the 'often' becoming 'always' over a longer timescale) to maintain a war in a 'democratic' nation. Democracies cannot be ruled by fear alone - although fear is still very important and a widely used tool. In a democracy you need to manufacture consent (to use Chomsky's phrase). This is done with the collision of mass media, and particularly the few media organs that can be regarded as crucial to 'opinion forming'. That would include the BBC in the UK, ABC/CBS/NBC in the US and similar 'respected' organs of the media in other countries. One method is to generate anger, but this method is problematic and is not always the first choice. Having demonized the 'enemy' and generated the anger required to elicit political support for action, the problem is that this has to be reversed once the action is no longer necessary/possible. If we stick with the example of WW2, after the war ended we (UK) had to deal with the hatred of Germans that had been successfully instilled in most of the population. In the US there was a similar hatred of Japanese (which makes the subsequent MacArthur-led occupation policies all the more admirable and far-sighted).

Public anger is the ritual performed whenever war is immanent. Politicians tune their story to facilitate it. Without it, there will be protests and the polticitian won't be re-elected, because he started a war that just cost money.

Quote:
On the main point, however, I disagree profoundly. Anger is a necessary emotion. It evolved for good evolutionary reasons, and it can be problematic for our modern society with large population densities. Where an individual cannot control anger then it can lead to an immediate 'lash-out' and I would certainly agree that this is never good and nearly always bad. Most of us, however, can get angry without allowing that anger to dictate our actions. Most of us are 'civilised' enough to control our anger in all but the most extreme circumstances - indeed if this were NOT the case then it is unlikely that we would be talking right now, because I cannot see how civilisation would have developed without that ability to control anger.

Owww now you assume that my main point would be anger is wrong. That is what the Buddha advocates. And although I really maintain that ruling out anger would rule out wars, I agree with you that surpressing all anger would not be beneficiary. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Buddhitst. However I feel this statement of the Buddha advocates peace and could prevent wars. The topic question is about peaceful religions.. it makes Buddhism a strong candidate.
Bikerman
Quote:
At first, you objected by assuming that my starting point "peace is not getting angry with eachother" would imply "every anger leads to action/war". We agree that was not the case, but there is a negation in there: when no one gets angry, no one is inclined to war. That's my thesis. Now it may occur, that someone gets angry without causing a conflict (or war, or any action), that is trivial.

There is some contradiction here....
[quote]The point where wee seem to meet, is anger not always causes war AND war is not always caused by anger.[quote]
If war is not always caused by anger then it follows that anger is not necessary to start a war. Now that IS a change of position from:
Quote:
if all anger leads to action.. action (e.g. war) origins from anger..
So it was not my assumption, it was your assertion. I stated what could be concluded from the statement 'peace is not getting angry with each other' in a previous posting - logically it follows that getting angry produces 'not peace' - however you wish to define that.

With regard to Thatcher and the Falklands - people tend to remember wrongly. People weren't that angry initially - most of them (me included) had to look at a map before we knew where the Falkland Islands were. Thatcher decided almost immediately that war was going to happen, then over the next few days the propaganda machine swung into action. Anger was no part of the decision in my opinion, but either way the decision - to go to war - would have been the correct POLITICAL decision to take, and she would have taken it, angry or not.
storyteller
I would have to say Buddhism and Jainism.

Jainism even teaches not to harm animals.
abhinavm24
ofcourse buddhism. Very Happy


most peaceful of all.
Bikerman
Oh really? Tell that to the Burmese Muslims currently being slaughtered by the Buddhists....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/25/burma-buddhist-mobs-burn-muslim-homes

Tell it to the people who remember Japanese treatment of prisoners and the massacres in China during WW2. The Buddhists 'schools' in Japan were very strongly supportive of Japanese militarism and expansionism.
LxGoodies
Forget it, Bikerman. I'm not going to discuss with you about syntactic details in English. I've wriiten several long submits since, explaining my position and you keep focussing on my very first response to you, to tell me I am wrong.

And you are quoting incomplete, that is..

Bikerman wrote:
Now that IS a change of position from:
LxGoodies wrote:

if all anger leads to action.. action (e.g. war) origins from anger..
So it was not my assumption, it was your assertion


This is the complete quote:

LxGoodies wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
That is both wrong and unrealistic. Peace is not ACTING against each other - anger does not always lead to action and the idea that people can avoid getting angry is either silly or sinister - or both.


It does not matter for this saying, if all anger leads to action.. action (e.g. war) origins from anger..


Anyway, the small sentence you cite may have been too short or something, I admit that... but after that, I DID explain what I meant. The blue text is my position. And war does not always "origin" from anger, that is where we came to agree upon.

If you are only interested in what I wrote 3 submits before, apparently with the only purpose of telling me I am wrong, why proceed on the topic anyway ?

And.. it's monday alas. Wink
Bikerman
But you are STILL employing the same contradiction.
The statement in blue is an absolute. 'actions, eg war, origin[ate - my correction] with anger. You have already said that this is not always the case, so therefore the statement is wrong and needs modifying to something like:
'Actions, eg war, may originate from anger.'

That is very different to the previous much stronger assertion.
redhakaw
The most peaceful religion that I have is brushing my teeth.

I am very religious when it comes to cleaning my teeth.

Next to that is taking a bath, I religiously take a bath daily
Nyasro
Though I'm Hindu fro Nepal I think Buddhism is the most peaceful religion.
It's an great honour to be Nepal as birthplace of Gautam Buddha - Founder of Buddhism.
deepode
I guess (almost) every (?) religions are peaceful, its people who are not. Wink
Indi
That's as silly as saying "every nuclear bomb is peaceful, it's the people who use them who are warlike", or "every virus is harmless, it's people's physiology that causes sickness".
dude_xyx
Buddhism and Taoism are not exactly not religions since they don't believe in any god or gods but just a ultimate end. Their goal is ending the life cycle rather than goto an immortal heaven.

I mean peace is not about religion but people. It's more people change religions to their taste and then make wars in name of religions. This has happen for thousands of years.
LxGoodies
deepode wrote:
I guess (almost) every (?) religions are peaceful, its people who are not. Wink
Indi wrote:
That's as silly as saying "every nuclear bomb is peaceful, it's the people who use them who are warlike", or "every virus is harmless, it's people's physiology that causes sickness".

Nevertheless it's a modern view often heard. That does not make it true, but for all practical purposes..

There are e.g. a lot of islam-discussions on forums, with the Fallaci-hoard on one side and muslim immigrants on the other side, defending their non-harmfull intentions toward non-muslims and their peaceful interpretation of a book, that (basically, literally) advocates violence against infidels.. Of course, this is a strange thing and you can't say "islam is peacefull" looking at these scriptures. But who am I, as a non-muslim, to state, that these people don't practice their islam properly ? Are they non-muslims ? Is "their religion" violent because IS is violent ?
deanhills
LxGoodies wrote:
But who am I, as a non-muslim, to state, that these people don't practice their islam properly ? Are they non-muslims ? Is "their religion" violent because IS is violent ?
I feel the same way. There's a total cultural divide here, the symbolic difference between writing from left to right and right to left, and reading from right to left and left to right. Subjects are approached from different angles. Not better or worse. Just different. With a whole different mindset behind it too.

I'm also beginning to wonder whether the freedom we think we have in the Western world comes at the huge price of our personal freedom. We've become so free with making laws to govern ourselves, the whole system behind it has become even more autocratic than systems in the good parts of the Middle East. Who these days is able to talk to their Bank Managers? The closest we get is to powerless call center agents who don't have any power to make decisions. Banks basically own everything we have. Ditto Government. For me in the end it's pretty much the same but from left to right instead of right to left. Of course when one gets to war zones it's a disaster. But I'm not totally unconvinced that the US had a lot to do with the escalation of violence in Syria at the time when it went from civil unrest to civil war. They are masters at controlling the media.

Think none of the above has to do with religion however. It's all about human corruption and greed, and hunger for power and control. "Religion" is used as a powerful tool to control and brainwash the masses.
Related topics
Ausse Minister Brendan Nelson to Tony Blair:
Any pagans in here?
islam is...
Muslims killed in stampede
The Religion of Peace
The Whole "GOD" Thing
Islam or Not Islam ?
"Buddha knows all answers!"
Most Peaceful country
Can I say I am a (please enter the religion you wish)?
The RISE of Islam!!
The FALL of Islam!!
Which is the most growing religion???
Buddhism is a philosophy
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.