• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Islam a "Religion of Peace"?

Is Islam a "Religion of Peace"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 11.4%

  • No

    Votes: 73 55.3%

  • Yes and no

    Votes: 28 21.2%

  • Something else

    Votes: 16 12.1%
  • Total voters
    132
US Conservative said:
Explain how "cancelling" will work.
Click to expand...

"Will work?" No, I am not asserting anything, but here is a speculation on how it may work.

If Islam considers women lower to men, and if it requires women to wear ninja clothing, then feminists have, can, and will counter those values by doing things that demonstrate that they are equal (or higher) than men, and that they can be nude if they wish. If the women do not brake any laws and they have the freedom of speech to do what they will, then the fanatics risk persecution by acting as they did in the video provided. So they cannot be all put to jail by trying to oppress women by force in a democratic society.

What follows is cognitive dissonance. Here on one hand the "book of God" tells them to oppress women, but on the other hand women mock them nakedly and there is nothing they can do about it (less face persecution as mentioned). They will have to tolerate and soften their misogyny values - adapt to reality.

On the other hand, ultra feminism and some of their extreme values (e.g., slut day, naked day, or whatever) will be challenged from Islamic fanatics. They too may soften some of their values - adapt to reality.

So they cancel each other out.
 
Riveroaks said:
And do these tell you that you will get 72 virgins in Valhalla for murdering, burning, and beheading people like the Quran does?
Click to expand...

The Quran doesn't say anything about 72 virgins. I don't have much use for Islam, but that "72 virgins" thing simply isn't there.
 
Kobie said:
The Quran doesn't say anything about 72 virgins. I don't have much use for Islam, but that "72 virgins" thing simply isn't there.
Click to expand...

Yep - the Quran does mention virgins of equal age but no mention of the number in paradise. That information and specificity comes from the Hadith. The Hadiths and the various translations thereof give all sorts of promises to martyr's etc.
 
Kobie said:
The Quran doesn't say anything about 72 virgins. I don't have much use for Islam, but that "72 virgins" thing simply isn't there.
Click to expand...

The only thing the Quran leaves out is the number 72. Everything else is there. The number comes from "interpretative" utterances by the imams.

I am aware.
 
Riveroaks said:
Then you must be getting good at counting to -0-.

Still you are very funny.
Click to expand...

You falsely stated that Buddhists have no scriptures.

You falsely stated that the Quran makes mention of "Valhalla" from Norse mythology.

And now you've falsely stated that you've made zero false statements.

So that's a least three in this thread that I know of:shrug: That's a lot of falsity.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You falsely stated that Buddhists have no scriptures.

You falsely stated that the Quran makes mention of "Valhalla" from Norse mythology.

And now you've falsely stated that you've made zero false statements.

So that's a least three in this thread that I know of:shrug: That's a lot of falsity.
Click to expand...

I merely speculated that there are none. I am no expert.

You are splitting nits.

The Quran is the only book causing psychos to murder, burn, and behead others. That statement stands un-refuted.

You are dragging a red herring with you everywhere you go.
 
Riveroaks said:
I merely speculated that there are none. I am no expert.

You are splitting nits.

The Quran is the only book causing psychos to murder, burn, and behead others. That statement stands un-refuted.

You are dragging a red herring with you everywhere you go.
Click to expand...

So, three false statements, you implicitly admit it. A man of integrity will admit when they are wrong and apologize rather than try to duck personal responsibility. I expect a prompt apology for your previous rudeness and misrepresentations of my comments.
 
Guy Incognito said:
So, three false statements, you implicitly admit it. A man of integrity will admit when they are wrong and apologize rather than try to duck personal responsibility. I expect a prompt apology for your previous rudeness and misrepresentations of my comments.
Click to expand...

Go away you are starting to be really annoying with your persistent red herrings.
 
Riveroaks said:
Go away you are starting to be really annoying with your persistent red herrings.
Click to expand...

especially since he has been dragging them around for 5 years here.

getting a wee bit ripe by now, they are......
 
Riveroaks said:
Go away you are starting to be really annoying with your persistent red herrings.
Click to expand...

There is something to be said for truthfulness, and the courage and strength of characters to candidly and straightforwardly admit when you're wrong. There are several falsehoods contained in your posts, and you have not made a straightforward admission or retraction of them.

First, Buddhists certainly do have a canon of holy scripture, which I have explained very clearly.

Second, there is no mention of "Valhalla" in the Quran, which makes perfect sense if you consider that Valhalla is the Hall of the ancient Germanic deity Odin, where the souls of warriors go when they die in honorable combat. It would be very odd indeed if this were in the Quran.

Calling these "red herrings" implies that there is some other conversation I'm involved in that these points are distracting from. That's another falsehood. I am concerned about the level of discourse when these sorts of very basic facts are misrepresented without challenge. These are incredibly easy things to look up. You could search google for "Buddhist scripture" or google "Valhalla" and find out these answers. There is no reason why, in the information age, misinformation of the sort you are propagating should be tolerated.
 
Guy Incognito said:
There is something to be said for truthfulness, and the courage and strength of characters to candidly and straightforwardly admit when you're wrong. There are several falsehoods contained in your posts, and you have not made a straightforward admission or retraction of them.

First, Buddhists certainly do have a canon of holy scripture, which I have explained very clearly.

Second, there is no mention of "Valhalla" in the Quran, which makes perfect sense if you consider that Valhalla is the Hall of the ancient Germanic deity Odin, where the souls of warriors go when they die in honorable combat. It would be very odd indeed if this were in the Quran.

Calling these "red herrings" implies that there is some other conversation I'm involved in that these points are distracting from. That's another falsehood. I am concerned about the level of discourse when these sorts of very basic facts are misrepresented without challenge. These are incredibly easy things to look up. You could search google for "Buddhist scripture" or google "Valhalla" and find out these answers. There is no reason why, in the information age, misinformation of the sort you are propagating should be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Red herring.
 
mbig said:
Breathtakingly Disingenuous Attempt narrowing/Twisting the Universe of Islam (Instead of what we ARE talking about), to 1/6 of 1% of the planet's Muslims.
The [Subjugated] USA population.
"Inherent" doesn't mean ALL Muslims, in ALL locations, are more violent EVERY day.
It does mean, that because of what's Stated/INHERENT in their scripture, they ARE More Prone to Violence.

I had already conceded there are (Much 'Larger') 1-2% sects (Sufis etc) that are generally peaceful.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/203954-islam-religion-peace-27.html#post1065029010
That does NOT change the fact that Islam is Inordinately (I use that adjective 95% of the time) but also, due to it's scripture, Inherently Violent.. AND intolerant.

The worldwide stats, you don't even want to get into, bear that out.
And as to what you Thought was your Best/bullet-proof claim, you are WRONG too.
And What does this mean?
Brischera: "..how is it possible the more than 2.5 million Muslims in the US have committed the LEAST amount of attacks in the US?"

Less than WHO?
Less than anyone/everyone else?
Less than their share?
"Least", no less, (3 or more groups) is wrong in ANY case.
They have committed less than Christians, but have committed an INORDINATELY Large amount of attacks for 1% of the USA population they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#1990s

That's about 20% of the attacks in the last 25 Years.
Again, INORDINATELY Violent.
Of course, if you include Foiled Terror attacks, they/the 1% USA Muslim pop, probably even have an absolute Majority of them.
50 Foiled plots - and perhaps 200 arrests - in/against America since 9/11
Heritage.org
50 Terror Attacks Foiled Since 9/11
and that was JUST 2001-2011

So even in your Cherry-picked Mini-population of 1/6th of 1% that constitute USA Muslims, you got Shredded.
Islam IS Inordinately and Inherently Violent.
They're much more dangerous.. even here.

That goes for Cephus, Janfu, and few more "all religions are the samers".
Click to expand...

When you have to literally rewrite the definition for the word "Inherent" just to have an excuse to keep typing it is safe to say...hahahha......lol....thanks.
 
Ignoring, for the moment, whether 72 virgins specifically are promised. And considering, for the moment, the person who believes they will get said 72 virgins.

Do they ever stop and ask where these virgins come from?

Are they young girls who died as virgins? If so, how young? Are they "made up" virgins for Heaven only who never lived on earth? Are they old hags who are 'made' virgin again after they die?
 
Kobie said:
There's nothing in the Koran about it, either. But thank you for putting your sheer, unadulterated ignorance on display for all of us to see.
Click to expand...

In Islam, the concept of 72 virgins (houri) refers to an aspect of Jannah (Paradise). This concept is grounded in Qur'anic text which describe a sensual Paradise where believing men are rewarded by being wed[1] to virgins with "full grown", "swelling" or "pears-shaped" breasts.[2][3] Conversly, women will be provided with only one man, and they "will be satisfied with him".[4]

72 Virgins - WikiIslam

It's not clear to me that this says the number 72 but, close enough.
 
DDD said:
"Will work?" No, I am not asserting anything, but here is a speculation on how it may work.

If Islam considers women lower to men, and if it requires women to wear ninja clothing, then feminists have, can, and will counter those values by doing things that demonstrate that they are equal (or higher) than men, and that they can be nude if they wish. If the women do not brake any laws and they have the freedom of speech to do what they will, then the fanatics risk persecution by acting as they did in the video provided. So they cannot be all put to jail by trying to oppress women by force in a democratic society.

What follows is cognitive dissonance. Here on one hand the "book of God" tells them to oppress women, but on the other hand women mock them nakedly and there is nothing they can do about it (less face persecution as mentioned). They will have to tolerate and soften their misogyny values - adapt to reality.

On the other hand, ultra feminism and some of their extreme values (e.g., slut day, naked day, or whatever) will be challenged from Islamic fanatics. They too may soften some of their values - adapt to reality.

So they cancel each other out.
Click to expand...

Two fundamentally opposed groups, constantly infighting (and only likely to get worse) is a smoldering fire, not cancelling out.

Leftists will shove it under the rug, it wont work.

The clash-is between western and Islamic values. Much bigger than something a cop can solve with handcuffs. It will, sadly be bloody.

No offense to Feminists (in this comment) but a naked women against a gang of Islamists isn't even really a "fight".

They are going to learn that a protest sign will simply become an instrument to beat them with.
 
Brischera said:
When you have to literally rewrite the definition for the word "Inherent" just to have an excuse to keep typing it is safe to say...hahahha......lol....thanks.
Click to expand...
I don't see any correction of my usage of Inherent.

2. You got CREAMED, even on your cherry-picked "USA Muslims" alone, committing "the least amount of attacks" as "Proof" it wasn't "inherent."
What a Backfiring and Ridiculous try that was!
USA Muslims too, commit an INORDINATE amount of Terror attacks, and if one includes 'foiled' ones, perhaps an Absolute Majority by that 1% of our population!
Which you now, of course, don't even mention/Can't even dispute.
Rarely does get get the chance to Destroy a claim so Completely.
Thus your EMBARASSED and EMPTY "hahaha/lol".
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
I don't see any correction of my definition of Inherent.

2. You got CREAMED even on USA Muslims alone, committing "the least amount of attacks" as "proof" it wasn't "inherent."
What a Backfiring and Ridiculous claim.
Which you now of course, don't even mention/dispute.
Rarely does get get the chance to Destroy a claim so Completely.
Thus your EMBARASSED and Empty "hahaha/lol".
Click to expand...

They know they are engaging in an insurmountable task-portray islam as peaceful to fit a PC agenda.
 
US Conservative said:
Two fundamentally opposed groups, constantly infighting (and only likely to get worse) is a smoldering fire, not cancelling out.

Leftists will shove it under the rug, it wont work.

The clash-is between western and Islamic values. Much bigger than something a cop can solve with handcuffs. It will, sadly be bloody.

No offense to Feminists (in this comment) but a naked women against a gang of Islamists isn't even really a "fight".

They are going to learn that a protest sign will simply become an instrument to beat them with.
Click to expand...

I am more optimistic.
 
mbig said:
I don't see any correction of my definition of Inherent.

2. You got CREAMED, even on your cherry-picked "USA Muslims" alone, committing "the least amount of attacks" as "Proof" it wasn't "inherent."
What a Backfiring and Ridiculous try that was!
Which you now, of course, don't even mention/Can't even dispute.
Rarely does get get the chance to Destroy a claim so Completely.
Thus your EMBARASSED and EMPTY "hahaha/lol".
Click to expand...

Ive noticed people like you on this forum having a habit of celebrating your own strawmen. It is to be expected because there is no accountability so no matter how many times you are proven wrong you simply shift direction, claim a new victory and move on. Your false support stems from those who share bigotry towards Islam so while not realizing the complete futility of argumentum ad populum you actually deceive yourselves into believing you are correct.

No amount of information can penetrate your fortress of denial. The fact you even cited the Heritage Foundation is evidence of desperation and the worst part? Even if the numbers are true it still proves as a group Muslims have committed the least amount of terrorist attacks in the US.
 
sawdust said:
In Islam, the concept of 72 virgins (houri) refers to an aspect of Jannah (Paradise). This concept is grounded in Qur'anic text which describe a sensual Paradise where believing men are rewarded by being wed[1] to virgins with "full grown", "swelling" or "pears-shaped" breasts.[2][3] Conversly, women will be provided with only one man, and they "will be satisfied with him".[4]

72 Virgins - WikiIslam

It's not clear to me that this says the number 72 but, close enough.
Click to expand...

That is an example of people trying to talk about Islam when their sources were people who still claim Allah is not the same as God.
 
Brischera said:
That is an example of people trying to talk about Islam when their sources were people who still claim Allah is not the same as God.
Click to expand...

So Christianity and Islam do not trace both origin's through Abraham?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom