The debate "Muslims are so blinded by their historical background that they can't imagine a peaceful society" was started by
May 23, 2015, 6:26 pm.
30 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 61 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Damn3d posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 6 arguments, lararea posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
WordSpeller, danval130, jedty, Damn3d, kkzddy, Flaming_Butt_Tart_42, toughgamerjerry, Bxat9, keyboardwarrior, kay_joey1101, R3dD0g, Afshin, denno27, Yanksxx21, QueenSleepy, ProfDoke and 14 visitors agree.
I_Voyager, soullesschicken, PsychDave, evamara, sdiop, action007man, lararea, invincible_01, historybuff, ScarletandRose, raz, kyaah, gigly, amanofprogress, Mathew, Upbeatethan, justicepanda77, alexithymia, musa17, Ashna, Georgi_ZKL24, ylmzemrah, Alp4president, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, Max, human and 35 visitors disagree.
Dang. Found out historybuff's first argument in this app.
I will give the verses I referenced later. I am not near my computer and switching back and forth to Chrome to cite things usually makes the app crash.
Them by your own admission, you don't agree that Muslims can imagine a peaceful society, so why would you vote that they can't. There are people of every faith who resort to violence, and Islam is no exception, but the topic states that Muslims in general aren't able to imagine a peaceful society but the many who are productive members of Western societies prove that this is not true.
Dave, I hope you aren't coming away from this thinking that I have an axe to grind with Islam. I don't. I am simply saying that given the history, I am not all that surprised about today's modern situation. I will say again, I do not think the average Muslim interprets their history in such a way, but certainly a large amount of people do, sadly.
On reading historybuff's post, I do agree about the circumstance, Jesus did have it easier in a way. But not too much, because after all he was killed for it. Even if he had been in a situation like Mohammed, though, I still somehow doubt he would become a warrior. I just don't see it, sorry. Good points though.
From Damn3d -
Alot. Yes, popes did speak for Christianity. But are you really going to sit here and tell me that Pope Innocent, who actually sold free passes to heaven, is just about the same as Pope Francis? That Alexander IV, who had children out of wedlock as pope, is roughly in same moral standing as Pope Gian Paul II? You've got to be joking. My biggest problem with the church is its history, and obviously I'm not the only one, because Protestant denominations came out of a realization that church authority wasn't following God's law as it was meant to be. Not today's problem, but it was back then. I'm not saying every muslim leader ever was a great representation of the faith.
Ok. About the bible. Where are you getting these references? I'd like to read them. If you're talking about Deuteronomy, nobody is being killed for planting two seeds in the same field. Not using God's name in vain is a COMMANDMENT that his chosen people were fully aware of. Lastly, seems like you need to do your research as well. God did not command the Israelites to kill the Midianites because they were pagan. If you read DT, you will see that the Midianites tried to spread idolotry amongst God's chosen people. God tried to lead the Midianites the right way, but they attacked his chosen people. Not as baseless as you seem to think.
But yes, it is still violence. Overall, though, you never see God calling for destruction and conversion of pagans. He always does it peacefully first. Like Moses and the Egyptians. Remember that he also punished Moses for killing.
Generally though, Jesus, who is God, always preached peace. Even the popes today speak out against all warfare. Oh, and just a reminder, Christianity's basis is Christ. The old testament isn't really Christianity yet. Though it gets there.
I do see your argument. Christ's message was far more peaceful than Mohammed's. I would say there are probably three main reasons for that. First Jesus had a large group of people to preach to who were more receptive. Christianity was a modification of Judaism. He wasn't trying to massively change the religion of those who he was preaching to. Muhammad was trying to convert violently polytheist pagans, a much more difficult conversion. this also gave him room to grow as the local population didn't all want him dead. Secondly Jesus lived in the Roman empire while Mohammad was born in essentially a city state. The Romans didn't care about the religion of the locals as long as they behaved. Thus there was no attempt to stop him until the end. For these two reasons violence was much less necessary for someone like Jesus. Without defending themselves the Muslims would have been exterminated. Thirdly we have no way of knowing if Jesus advocated violence or not. the Bible was written hundreds of years after the death of jesus. it is certain to have been edited and rewritten in that time.
So you are distancing yourself from all immoral actions of Christianity by claiming that those who spoke for Christianity "weren't that religious?" That seems a little too convenient. Christian leaders just aren't religious, whole Muslim leaders are accurate representations of their faith for the same actions.
You also keep citing Jesus as an explanation of why Christianity is a religion of peace, but his is not the only voice in the Bible. The old testament is full of killing. People are supposed to be killed for planting different crops in the same field, using the lords name in vain, being a heretic or non-believer and many other offences. There are even passages about killing every male and every female who is not a virgin and claiming the virginal girls as slaves. You cannot just claim that these are outdated and no longer part of Christianity since the same sections are cited as showing that being gay is a sin, which is still considered justified, so obviously these lessons have not been discarded. How is Christian religious law different from Muslim?
Fair enough. It does seem as if they are on the defensive, though I am unsure why they were in that situation to begin with. Mea Culpa, but that does not change the fact that Mohammed himself spread Islam through conquest and forced conversion. That is my point. He was Gods servant, and that was how he must have interpreted gods request to convert others.
The crusades were an attempt to recapture the Holy Land from Islamic conquest. It was defensive, much like the passage that you have pointed out was out of context. But of course you are probably thinking about indulgences and the Children's crusade, but had you bothered to read my first post, I did say that many popes were actually not very religious at all. Innocent was far from innocent, many of the popes from that Era are looked down upon with disdain. Jesus never preached violence, you may remember he even sowed back on the ear ofo the soldier who was attacked by Peter. I am not saying that Boko Haram or ISIS are true Islamics. But strangely enough, they are trying to convert others to Islam by terrorism and assault... Which leads me to believe that the history of its initial spread may allow for such interpretations in the modern world. That is not saying that an average Muslim cannot envision a world of peace as the statement said.
You also may want to look into the context of the quote you are abusing. It is a specific reference to a battle in which the Muslims were on the defensive, outnumbered, and won anyways. You may want to read the entire passage so that you understand what you are referencing and don't look like either you are intentionally misrepresenting the Muslim faith or are too foolish to familiarize yourself with what you quote before doing so on a public forum.
So are you denying that the crusades happened, or ignoring it? Likewise the puritan's coming to North America and killing or converting the natives.
Boko Haram might very well be false Islamics. But the day you see Christian terrorist groups attacking and killing innocent people to establish theocratic law, let me know. Muslims are not bad people but it is very easy for some to interpret their history as a motive for religious violence.
I don't think so. To me, the lines it call on Muslims to attack the unbelievers for the crime of disbelief in Allah. I don't see it as self defence. And anyhow, compare the two centrepiece figures of the faiths. Mohammed spoke to God and inspired him with the ideas that are in the quran. He, the most important prophet of Islam, spread his faith through violent takeovers of neighboring tribes. Now look at Jesus. Jesus is God himself, according to Christian theory. Jesus was a man of peace, spreading good ministry through word. He was eventually killed by the Romans for doing so. If God himself were as such, it leads me to believe those inspired to kill in the name of the faith were greatly misled. You might recall one of the Commandments is. Thou shall not kill. I am not criticizing Islam for its historical background. But as you can clearly see, there are a few Islamic terrorist groups trying to be like Mohammed in spreading Sharia law to the unbelieving enemies who aren't even attacking them in the first place. Oh, and to me at least the story of the flood was only a narrative explaining what would happen to those who rejected God at the end of their days, and how the faithful will be rewarded when that day comes, using imagery people of the time would understand. Much like the creation myths.
First of all your quote is out of context. if you read the lines before and after that one in the Qur'an it is clear that line is directed at those who try to suppress and kill Muslims. It is telling Muslims to defend themselves, not to expand violently as you seem to think it does. Also Christianity didn't spread as peacefully as you think either. There was a constant stream of attacks on pagans and Jews who refused to convert or live by Christian laws. After the conversion of the Roman emperors they began to suppress all other religions and to exile or kill anyone who wouldn't follow their version of Christianity.
It's not always the religion it's just the people. Don't forget that.
Good point BUT the bible isn't so innocent its self now is it? The bible claims that God sent the plagues to Eygpt which killed many! God himself did that. Noahs arc, the flood was mass genicide. I guess that the ruler of the christian faith is a little murderous himself not to mention a hippocrytical since one of his ten commandments was 'do not murder'. Just goes to show that the christian faiths teaching are just as bad.
Firstly, yes I understand that every religion may be falsely represented by extremists that taint the faith. However, you cannot deny that the amount of Muslim extremist attacks far outweighs the magnitude than of Christianity. Think 911. Think. Boko Haram. Think Hezbollah. Think ISIS. Think Taliban. The fact is that Islamic extremism is far more prevalent than Christian in today's world. Christianity does not have a perfect history. There were warring popes and immoral popes and incompetent popes. Some worried too much about worldly things than spiritual guidance. But at its roots, Christianity spread in a peaceful way. There were leaders that didn't fully understand the faith, see the Spanish Inquisition. But its basis was not violent. Unlike Mohammed, who spread Islam by violent forced submission of other tribes. 'I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" is written in the quran. So are several other phrases that call for the death of the enemy nonbelievers. This could well account for groups like Boko Haram, who's goal is to spread Sharia law in a violent fashion. The average Muslim chooses to live a peaceful life, but the history and the ideology lead some to believe in a peaceful society only when everyone is Muslim. Good luck with that.
I can't believe people believe this and no muslims are not 'blinded' by their historical background. I'm sure most can imagine a peaceful society. It is a small minority that have turned the religion into something it is not and people need to realise that. I don't know if you forgot but every religion has a good and bad element. For example we have had a christian terrorist group in recent years that had attacked shopping centres in Britain and other attacks on others due to extremist beliefs. Stop being ignorant. Open your eyes because right now you are the one that is 'blinded'.
While this is true of some Muslims, generalizing it to portray all Muslims is no more fair than saying the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christians. The vast majority of Muslims believe in peace as much as anyone else, but they are being painted with the same brush as extremists and terrorists.