Muslims Fail to Prove Islam is a Religion of Peace in Debate

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: luthier

Do you think there should be a second attempt at a sort of renewal or reaffirmation in the Islamic faith?

I think the time is ripe for a Muslim enlightenment era. The Unfortunate fact is the west has paid too much money to the States preserving dark age theology. We rightly critize Iran but not Saudia Arabia or many other ME nations states for the very same barbaric behaviour towards their own society.

The people need to have their thinkers not be killed. The need their own versions of Locke, Rouseau, Spinoza, Kant etc to not be locked away and hung.

It takes time. Think of the bloody revolution during Hobbe's time versus the glorious revolution of the Enlightenment era.

a reply to: miniatus

I think the primary cause of war is the self aggrandizement of the people who start and promote those wars. They may well use religion as an inducement for allegiance for said wars.

a reply to: luthier

I agree of course. An enlightenment period would not just have helped Islam move into modern times it would have also guided their followers into the modern age of science. When Christianity had a reaffirmation they dropped their most destructive dogma and embraced science. Much of that science had been pioneered by the Muslims of the period. The Muslims fell behind scientifically as a result.

a reply to: luthier

I agree. An effort should remain to protect advanced Muslim thinkers from destruction so that a Muslim Renaissance can prevail. time.com...

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: luthier

I agree of course. An enlightenment period would not just have helped Islam move into modern times it would have also guided their followers into the modern age of science. When Christianity had a reaffirmation they dropped their most destructive dogma and embraced science. Much of that science had been pioneered by the Muslims of the period. The Muslims fell behind scientifically as a result.

I agree. It's the freedom of thought and the ability to have unrestricted dialogue that advances society. Thats why Kings and rulers seal their fate of decline. You can't choke out ideas and expect to move forward.

Wow, that muslim guy sure seemed to shoot himself in the foot with his closing statement right before the vote.

He was basically saying that voting in his favour wasn't a vote for Islam being peaceful, but instead it was a vote for peace itself, sneaky tactic there to try and win.

He also said, paraphrased, 'even if you don't believe Islam is a religion of peace vote for it because you would like it to be a religion of peace'.

The audience laughed at him when he said it.

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

I think your conclusion is correct. The panel member tried to use emotion and wishes to win his failed argument in the end.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Just finished watching. Zeba and the ex radical both stuck their feet in their mouths big time. Especially him when he pretty much handed the debate over with the comment about why people don't speak up enough. Cause they don't want to get killed. Good debate.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Coincidentally, I watched this yesterday. I didn't think I would watch it all due to boredom but it was a really interesting debate.

I recommend people watch it.

a reply to: JDmOKI

Hitler used a lot of christian doctrine for the bases of stirring the people to his side but I agree the war had nothing to with Christianity solely. Although it does mention in the bible to kill and maim those in the name of God that God finds undesirable.
Deuteronomy 17

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.

Also Moses ordered his Jewish army to slaughter the men, take the women and steal the loot of an entire settlement because God promised his people that land. Numbers 31:7

They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

Tell me again how Christianity and Judaism are the 'holier than thou' religions of peace again...

I would say no Islam is not a religion of peace, but what you gonna do about it peacefully? Because it seems we only deal with their violence by being more violent.

The side arguing that it is a religion of peace basically admitted that it is not during his closing statement.

He emphasized that "it does need to be redefined for current times". If it were in fact a "religion of peace" already, it would not need to redefined.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
The side arguing that it is a religion of peace basically admitted that it is not during his closing statement.

He emphasized that "it does need to be redefined for current times". If it were in fact a "religion of peace" already, it would not need to redefined.

How can the indoctrination of centuries be redefined, much more

so when it is imposed from the cradle.


I think the Muslim religion is more relaxed in the west where natural

immigration over decades has had an influence, in bringing the *old*

ways into the 21st century.

Then we get the still radical ones, new immigrants from the old

countries and clerics who (like the parliamentary whips) try to whip

them back up into a radical state!

Are humans creatures of peace ? That's the first question all of you should ask before anything else.

I would say any religion that have espoused that a god is on their side while going into battle is not a religion of peace.

That excludes most religions from being peaceful.

originally posted by: miniatus

originally posted by: xuenchen
Islam and war

yup

real peaceful bunch

Islam - 270 Million people killed in 1400 Years

Murder rate: White America, like most Christian countries in the Americas, Africa and Eastern Europe, is markedly more violent than most of the Middle East (murders per 100,000 population):

0.6 Bahrain
0.7 Oman
0.8 United Arab Emirates
0.9 Qatar
1.0 Saudi Arabia
1.2 Egypt
1.7 Cyprus
1.8 Jordan
2.0 Iraq
2.1 Israel
2.2 Kuwait
2.2 Lebanon
2.3 Syria
3.0 Iran
3.3 Turkey
3.4 WHITE AMERICA
4.1 Palestine
4.2 Yemen
Terrorist attacks: According to the FBI, only 6% of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were carried out by Muslim extremists. Even Jewish extremists carried out more (7%).

War: Wars with at least a million dead:

Christian wars:

years: name: conservative body count in millions
535-554: Gothic Wars: 5.0m
790-1300: Reconquista: 7.0m
1096-1272: Crusades: 2.0m
1337-1453: Hundred Years’ War: 3.0m
1562-1598: French Wars of Religion: 3.0m
1568-1648: Dutch Revolt: 1.0m
1618-1648: Thirty Years’ War: 3.0m
1655-1660: Second Northern War: 3.0m
1763-1864: Russian-Circassian War: 2.0m
1792-1802: French Revolutionary Wars: 2.0m
1803-1815: Napoleonic Wars: 3.5m
1830-1903: War in Venezuela: 1.0m
1882-1898: Conquests of Menelik II of Ethiopia: 5.0m
1910-1920: Mexican Revolution: 1.0m
1914-1918: First World War: 20.0m
1917-1922: Russian Civil War: 5.0m
1939-1945: Second World War: 41.5m (European deaths only)
1946-1954: First Indochina War: 1.0m
1950-1953: Korean War: 1.2m
1955-1975: Vietnam War: 1.1m
1998-2003: Second Congo War: 2.5m
Muslim wars:

1370-1405: Conquests of Tamerlane: 7.0m
1681-1707: Conquests of Aurangzeb: 5.0m
1967-1970: Nigerian Civil War: 1.0m
1980-1988: Iran-Iraq War: 1.0m
1983-2005: Second Sudanese Civil War: 1.0m
1989-2001: Afghan Civil War: 1.4m

Seven times more people have died in Christian wars: 113.8 million compared to the 16.4 million who died in Muslim wars.

That is great and all that you're trying to make a point but it really isn't necessary to inject your racism towards white people. P.s research the muslim invasion of india, you will need to add millions more to your biased muslim estimate, as well as the fact that muslims molested and destroyed hinduism to the point that it is impossible to trace its original form.

Face the facts buddy, you're biased and quite racist. I wouldn't trust a word you say.

a reply to: DrakeINFERNO

A lot of the wars in the ME were as "Muslims" as World War 1 is Christian. When the Mongols came devastating through the ME there was nothing "Muslim" about it.

The links provided in this thread to stats on "Muslim" wars are biased, with quite a few portions made up and would not be taken seriously by any scholar. You might as well post David Icke as a source. More right wing extremists giving none-history lessons to all those that won't take the time to read actual history books.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: miniatus

Why do atheists always start a debate about Christianity when its not even the topic?

It's called, "putting things in perspective". If you are going to rail on the Muslim religion for being violent, then we'll show you that your religion is no better. Thus making your rhetoric fall flat.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: miniatus

Why do atheists always start a debate about Christianity when its not even the topic?

It's called, "putting things in perspective". If you are going to rail on the Muslim religion for being violent, then we'll show you that your religion is no better. Thus making your rhetoric fall flat.

I would say it's called moral relativism. When you are shown a troubling truth, you distract from it because it makes you uncomfortable. In fairness, it makes all of us uncomfortable. We would likely all agree with your propensity for justification if we didn't know as much as we now do.

The debate was clearly defined and the result was clearly reasoned and transparent (except for that weird cut in the middle).

I'm sorry to say but, it's time for us to grow up and face the music, no pun intended.

This was not a debate about any religion other than Islam. To bring any other topic to this discussion simply derails the topic at hand. The op requested we as posters to this thread, watch the complete debate and respond to said debate. Because by not doing so, your views or opinions on the subject at hand would be subjective by the very nature of incomplete information to start with.

Whether we agree with the results or not is irrelevant to that point.

In reference to the debate, I did watch it in its entirety and have to agree with the results. The pro side, time and time again referenced the necessity for reform or revolution to establish a more permanent state of peaceful involvement in the religion of Islam. Which by that very nature at present, it is not a religion of peace. The cons proved their point.