Why is the Muslim religion a "religion of peace"?

[xxlt]

(10-24-2015, 07:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Constantly reminding you that you shouldn't lump in 1.57 billion people in with a minority isn't "defending" or "making excuses".

B I N G O

[Bengalzona]

(10-24-2015, 04:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: But there is a lot of excuse making or rationalizing for Islam.   Everyone is so quick to try and tell you that it's not violent, but as many have said its not the religion who is violent but the followers.  

Right now Muslims are a violent culture.   The fact anyone makes excuses for them is laughable.   And even if they aren't murdering people, they still are oppressing women which is equally as bad.   women are not allowed to speak to others unless their husband or father gives permission.    Is this the type of world we want to live?   A place where nonmuslim women are considered whores.  

Yes Christianity has also gone through a very violent time.   But somehow Christians have stopped large scale violence and oppression.  Muslims however have been violent for ages and continue their violence.  

The Muslims who are calling for reformation are the ones who truly want peace.  The ones who are not..... They just want the violence and their holy war.

The concept of a Islamic Jihad existed long before the concept of a Christian Crusade and has been instituted far, far more often. It is the same with slavery.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-24-2015, 07:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Constantly reminding you that you shouldn't lump in 1.57 billion people in with a minority isn't "defending" or "making excuses".

Sure it is.... It's most of them who agree with oppressing women. Female oppression is ridiculously high in that religion.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-24-2015, 09:39 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The concept of a Islamic Jihad existed long before the concept of a Christian Crusade and has been instituted far, far more often. It is the same with slavery.

You are exactly right. I was not trying to say it was caused by Christians. Looking back on the Christian wars they are typically in response to a Muslim attack.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(10-25-2015, 01:27 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sure it is.... It's most of them who agree with oppressing women.   Female oppression is ridiculously high in that religion.

Most definitely.  The religion as a whole treats women as inferior.  It's similar to Christian treatment of gays.  Of course there are some humanists among them, but the teachings of the religion just aren't positive.

[Bengalzona]

(10-25-2015, 01:29 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You are exactly right.  I was not trying to say it was caused by Christians.   Looking back on the Christian wars they are typically in response to a Muslim attack.

Christians developed the concept of the Crusade based upon the Muslim concept of Jihad. The Muslims had been doing that against Christians and other religions for hundreds of years before the Pope called for the first Crusade.

But, of course, the whole concept of a "Holy War" was a big facade for both the Muslim and the Christian leadership. "Punishing the infidels" or "Retaking the Holy Land" was just a big excuse and a recruitment tool. The true goals had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with leaders attaining and maintaining power.

Almanzor and his ancestors used this tool in Spain in the 10th century. He, being an Arab and from the Umayyad lineage, faced growing revolts among the Berbers. The Berbers were Muslims from North Africa who were brought as mercenaries to fight in the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and the attempted conquest of France. Though they were the best fighters in Almanzor's army, they were looked at as second class by the Arab minority. After the invasion, the Christians (former Visigoths and Romans) who were not overrun and forced into either conversion or slavery migrated north and established a handful of small kingdoms (Leon, Castille, etc.). Almanzor had rebuilt the Muslim army and had the manpower and skills to wipe out these kingdoms. He did not. They were more useful to him as they were. Each year, he would declare a Jihad against the Christians, assemble his army, and go on a limited campaign of basically raiding the Christian kingdoms for plunder and slaves. In this way, he appeased the Berber mercenaries with plunder and kept the revolts at a minimum. It was a trick he learned from his predecessors and one which subsequent caliphs would use.

Of course, the Crusades were nothing more than a way for Christian leaders to find something "constructive" for non-direct heirs to do instead of plotting against them.

[Se ky bengal]

(10-20-2015, 01:14 PM)Benton Wrote:

Woke up quick, at about dawn
Just thought that I had to be in Lancaster soon
I gotta get at peace, before the day begins
Before my mother starts prayin' about my friends
About to go and near went blind
Young Amish on the path peacefully lookin' for signs
I went in the house, to get my hat,
with the pitchfork, strung on my back
I bailed outside and I hefted my farm implement,
and just as I thought, the unenlightened kept steppin'
I jumped in the buggy, harnessed up my ride,
I got reflective triangles front and back, side to side
Then I let the sound of silence stay
I was hummin' hymns in a somber way
I was Amish, Amish at the top of the list,
Then I played my own hymn, it went somethin' like this:
"Cruisin down the street in my buggy-yo',
not looking at ladies, not dancin' ya know,
I went to the barn, to get some hay,
This horse be eatin' it all day."

A car pulls up, who can it be?

It's a load of tourists lookin' to buy cabinets from me.
He rolls down the window and he starts to say:
"You and your friends all about makin' that woodwork, eh?"

Cuz the boys in the Ordnung are always modest
Come needin' a hand and you'll get it, honest
Knowin' nothin' in life but to be legit,
Don't photograph me boy, I can't have it.

Beat me to it. 

[StLucieBengal]

(10-25-2015, 02:42 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Christians developed the concept of the Crusade based upon the Muslim concept of Jihad. The Muslims had been doing that against Christians and other religions for hundreds of years before the Pope called for the first Crusade.

But, of course, the whole concept of a "Holy War" was a big facade for both the Muslim and the Christian leadership. "Punishing the infidels" or "Retaking the Holy Land" was just a big excuse and a recruitment tool. The true goals had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with leaders attaining and maintaining power.

Almanzor and his ancestors used this tool in Spain in the 10th century. He, being an Arab and from the Umayyad lineage, faced growing revolts among the Berbers. The Berbers were Muslims from North Africa who were brought as mercenaries to fight in the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and the attempted conquest of France. Though they were the best fighters in Almanzor's army, they were looked at as second class by the Arab minority. After the invasion, the Christians (former Visigoths and Romans) who were not overrun and forced into either conversion or slavery migrated north and established a handful of small kingdoms (Leon, Castille, etc.). Almanzor had rebuilt the Muslim army and had the manpower and skills to wipe out these kingdoms. He did not. They were more useful to him as they were. Each year, he would declare a Jihad against the Christians, assemble his army, and go on a limited campaign of basically raiding the Christian kingdoms for plunder and slaves. In this way, he appeased the Berber mercenaries with plunder and kept the revolts at a minimum. It was a trick he learned from his predecessors and one which subsequent caliphs would use.

Of course, the Crusades were nothing more than a way for Christian leaders to find something "constructive" for non-direct heirs to do instead of plotting against them.

fantastic post.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-25-2015, 02:39 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Most definitely.  The religion as a whole treats women as inferior.  It's similar to Christian treatment of gays.  Of course there are some humanists among them, but the teachings of the religion just aren't positive.

Christians are not nearly as anti gay as Muslims are anti women.

This is my biggest beef with them as a whole. It's disgusting that we sit by and allow them to treat women as property. We certainly would let accept it from anyone else.

[Se ky bengal]

(10-20-2015, 01:14 PM)Benton Wrote:

Woke up quick, at about dawn
Just thought that I had to be in Lancaster soon
I gotta get at peace, before the day begins
Before my mother starts prayin' about my friends
About to go and near went blind
Young Amish on the path peacefully lookin' for signs
I went in the house, to get my hat,
with the pitchfork, strung on my back
I bailed outside and I hefted my farm implement,
and just as I thought, the unenlightened kept steppin'
I jumped in the buggy, harnessed up my ride,
I got reflective triangles front and back, side to side
Then I let the sound of silence stay
I was hummin' hymns in a somber way
I was Amish, Amish at the top of the list,
Then I played my own hymn, it went somethin' like this:
"Cruisin down the street in my buggy-yo',
not looking at ladies, not dancin' ya know,
I went to the barn, to get some hay,
This horse be eatin' it all day."

A car pulls up, who can it be?

It's a load of tourists lookin' to buy cabinets from me.
He rolls down the window and he starts to say:
"You and your friends all about makin' that woodwork, eh?"

Cuz the boys in the Ordnung are always modest
Come needin' a hand and you'll get it, honest
Knowin' nothin' in life but to be legit,
Don't photograph me boy, I can't have it.

Beat me to it. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2015, 01:27 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sure it is.... It's most of them who agree with oppressing women.   Female oppression is ridiculously high in that religion.

40% of this country still thinks gay people shouldn't have the same rights as straight people. That's a ridiculously high level of oppression. Should Europeans call us "savages" and "animals" because of those people?

Hell, considering that many Americans still hold these subservient views of women and the don't think it's right for girls to play with science related toys, and given how far we lag behind other countries in promoting equality and providing services to women, should we be viewed as "savages" and "animals" for their beliefs?

[GMDino]

(10-25-2015, 04:53 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Christians are not nearly as anti gay as Muslims are anti women.  

This is my biggest beef with them as a whole.  It's disgusting that we sit by and allow them to treat women as property.   We certainly would let accept it from anyone else.

Do Muslims give them television shows?

[Belsnickel]

What's interesting is that Muslim societies have been regressing on equality in some areas. Up until about 100-150 years ago, women in Muslim cultures were treated better by the law, were afforded more freedoms, and were on much more equal footing with their male counterparts than any women in western societies. It is interesting that after the west really started to meddle hard core in the region that they started to regress in this way and become more conservative.

[GMDino]

(10-25-2015, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What's interesting is that Muslim societies have been regressing on equality in some areas. Up until about 100-150 years ago, women in Muslim cultures were treated better by the law, were afforded more freedoms, and were on much more equal footing with their male counterparts than any women in western societies. It is interesting that after the west really started to meddle hard core in the region that they started to regress in this way and become more conservative.

Look at a LOT of the middle east nations and how "modern" they were before the religious leaders too control.

And then look at the US and the call for us to "bring God back".

:snark:

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2015, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What's interesting is that Muslim societies have been regressing on equality in some areas. Up until about 100-150 years ago, women in Muslim cultures were treated better by the law, were afforded more freedoms, and were on much more equal footing with their male counterparts than any women in western societies. It is interesting that after the west really started to meddle hard core in the region that they started to regress in this way and become more conservative.

It's nationalism just as we saw in Europe. The difference is that Europeans were allowed to create their own borders that respected ethnicities. These Middle Eastern areas, though, had groups forced together. When religion is the only thing you have in common, it is going to be the driving force of your nationalism. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-25-2015, 10:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: Do Muslims give them television shows?

Am I the only one that thinks that is obnoxious? Also what does that guy do that he can afford that many kids?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-25-2015, 10:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: Do Muslims give them television shows?

It's a uterus, not a clown car. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2015, 12:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's nationalism just as we saw in Europe. The difference is that Europeans were allowed to create their own borders that respected ethnicities. These Middle Eastern areas, though, had groups forced together. When religion is the only thing you have in common, it is going to be the driving force of your nationalism. 

I had never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. I mean, even when we look at the former HRE and the history of that region, they made their own boundaries really and chose with whom they wanted to share the descriptor German, for instance.

[Bengalzona]

(10-25-2015, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What's interesting is that Muslim societies have been regressing on equality in some areas. Up until about 100-150 years ago, women in Muslim cultures were treated better by the law, were afforded more freedoms, and were on much more equal footing with their male counterparts than any women in western societies. It is interesting that after the west really started to meddle hard core in the region that they started to regress in this way and become more conservative.

I like your terminology here when you use the phrase "the West" rather than Christianity. Except for certain areas of Africa, neo-Muslims don't have it in for Christians. Their problem is with Western society in general, which they view as amoral, decadent, colonialist and "anti-God". They feel that their forefathers during the past 100-150 years "catered" to Western demands, particularly with setting boundaries and dividing them into nation-states.

Early Islam did not have such set boundaries. They had Sultans and Caliphates and such. But the boundaries were never really set. They were ever-changing and depended upon how much power an individual leader had at any given time. This made a lot of sense to desert-dwelling peoples in Arabia and North Africa and seemed natural. They were particularly in-tune with having a single strongman type leader who "represented the Faith" over them. And these strongmen leaders were empowered by their claims of lineage to Muhammad. Because of these lineage claims, Islam could unify to a much greater degree than other religions like Christianity despite the vast distances of desert that they stretched.

European interest in the region increased in the 19th century. By this time, education and industrialization in the West had eclipsed technical advancements in the East. Britain and France constructed the Suez Canal shortly after our Civil War and basically turned the nascent nation-state of Egypt into a puppet state. After World War I, the ottoman Empire was dissolved and large portions of the former empire were divided up by the European states to be formed into mandates or protectorates. These proto-states would become the modern nation-states in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon).

But the people in these areas had no history of being separate peoples or of independently interacting with the world. There were tribal, ethnic and religious differences, to be sure. But outside of Egypt, there was no history of thinking of themselves as a specific nationality. Now, what made a Syrian a Syrian or an Iraqi an Iraqi was merely and imaginary line drawn on a map. And these lines had no regard for tribal, ethnic or religious differences. And the Western powers, which the people in the area saw as just another conquering entity, did not behave in the way previously conquerors had behaved by setting down and enforcing new laws. It was predictable that in each of these new proto-nations strongmen and despots would come to power. And this was encouraged by the Western powers as it tended to "keep the peace". But what made these new strongmen different was their lack of connection to the Muhammadic lineage. All of this seemed artificial to the people of the region.

It should be little wonder that some portions of the population in the Middle East would look back longingly on the "Golden Days" of Islam and seek to recreate that. And the world continues to pay a heavy price for the casual and short-sided nature that the British (primarily) and other Western powers decided to divest themselves of their former colonies, mandates and protectorates.

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2015, 12:40 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Am I the only one that thinks that is obnoxious? Also what does that guy do that he can afford that many kids?

Prior to the show they invested in real estate and it paid off. They also are very cheap people and built their house for very little.