Is Islam a religion of peace?

Krazy: If the world was atheistic people would stop committing crimes in the name of religions. Also, I know the bible says this and that, but history has shown different.

Krazy: But hang on, it's irrelevant whether those verses are being interpreted CORRECTLY or not by the Catholics. All that would prove is that catholics twist scripture... a moderate muslim would say an extremist would do the same.

It's not my contention that the Bible is violent in this respect, but it can be INTERPRETED (even if you think that interpretation is false) in a violent way. Any given NT passage, for example (and there are several) that asks Christians to defend their faith against non-believers, could be interpreted like a defensive war, not unlike the principle of Jihad. Of course, that would be a downright wild exaggeration, but you could misinterpret the Christian faith. It follows then, the Islamic faith could also be misinterpreted. Ultimately the extremists and the moderates can't both be right.

Iran is a strange case in that their government is fairly democratic, but their courts are extremely theocratic. This means that in effect, Iran has 4 legal systems. The government has no law against being an atheist, but a Islamic cleric may issue a fatwa forcing the islamic courts to enforce one (a practice known as hodud). It's not because Iran is, strictly speaking, a sharia law country like Somalia, for example. In fact Christians have specific privileges in Iran's constitution, preventing any person who says they are Christian from prosecuted for a crime like apostasy (except in some limited situations - such as if they converted from Islam, they may still be under the jurisdiction of the Islamic court). And by the way, I'm not defending the country, I'm just saying it's not that every single person in Iran wants to kill all non-muslims, it's just a messed up government system.

For the record, the Qu'ran says absolutely nothing about what to do with atheists, and not all muslims agree they should be killed. I believe you may be thinking of Hadith. I should also note that, in a Christian tradition, atheists have been discriminated against as well. Michael Servetus was executed by protestants and calvinists - not catholics - for being a humanist, on the basis of scripture. John Calvin himself personally oversaw the trial.

admin: All that would prove is that catholics twist scripture... a moderate muslim would say an extremist would do the same.
True. But they would have a much harder time convincing people of it. The most straight forward interpretation of the Koran is to be at war with unbelievers. So they launch military jihad (struggle). That's how it's spread in it's early years...and that's how it's still spread today.

Any given NT passage, for example (and there are several) that asks Christians to defend their faith against non-believers, could be interpreted like a defensive war, not unlike the principle of Jihad.
Here are the verses in the NT that talk about "giving a defense".

1 Peter 3:15- "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect"
It says to give a reason, not to wage war. And the fact that it says "do it with gentleness and respect" basically rules out the interpretation of war.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5- "For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ"
It literally says here that we are not supposed to wage war with other people because of what their religion is (or lack thereof). Instead, it says "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion". So war is not a valid interpretation here.

Philippians 1:7- "It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel."
The context here is thanksgiving and prayer, so war is not a good interpretation. Also, if anybody interpreted this as waging war, then that would contradict other verses of the Bible (such as the one above), so that is not a correct interpretation. It's saying to give a reasoned argument.

When the Bible says to "give a defense", it uses the greek word "apologia", which means "properly, a well-reasoned reply" and is the root of the english word "apologetics". So if somebody says that the Bible means a military defense, they are essentially adding stuff to the Bible. It's not even an interpretation; it simply doesn't say it.

I should also note that, in a Christian tradition, atheists have been discriminated against as well. Michael Servetus was executed by protestants and calvinists - not catholics - for being a humanist, on the basis of scripture
Again, the Bible doesn't say to kill people based on their belief.

Krazy: Sure, but these are YOUR interpretations of these passages. And you're coupling that with YOUR interpretation of the Qu'ran. All I'm saying is that, some people will interpret the bible differently. And if the size of the catholic faith is anything to go by, it's not very hard to convince people of that either.

During the golden age of islam, several great poets and philosophers were openly atheist and suffered practically no persecution - this was during the same period when Christians were commonly burning atheists at the stake. Prevailing interpretations are not always constant in faith. Things have certainly reversed and western society is now probably the most liberal in history, while the once progressive Islamic society has, if anything, gone backwards in the past millennium.

All I'm saying is that the whole thing about "twisting scripture" might apply two ways, that's all.

admin: Okay.

Iran is a strange case in that their government is fairly democratic
Lol, not at all. At most you could consider them a constitutional republic, but that is pushing it.

The government has no law against being an atheist
The state has an active policy of persecuting non-muslims. Their were also UN reports on the suppression of Kurds and Bahai, which is why those groups were never in high states of upheaval in Iran.

My problem with Krazy, is that he argues the Catholic bible is incorrect, but tries to justify the NVT generic protestant bible as correct, but uses no substance to back up that point.

Am I the only one who realizes that every bible selectively picks and chooses what books should be in or out, and Krazy is still saying that the bible is god breathed. No it isn't, because the bible is literally just an assortment of books that a religious leader deemed as worthy.

The generic protestant bible has 39 books , the Catholic Bible has 49 books, and the Orthodox bible has between 50-60 books (opting out some of the books in the Catholic Bible)

Many Oriental Orthodox churches have over 100 books in their bible. The Aramaic bible has 152 books.

Blackflag: Since I might not do a good job of explaining the canonization process of the Bible, here is an article from Got Questions Ministries that better explains it in an article titled :How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say which books belong in the Bible?

If Scripture is to be our sole authority, on what authority do we know which books belong in the Bible - since the Bible does not state which books should be in the Bible? This is a very important question, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In the chain of communication from God to humanity, is there a weak link? If so, then the whole chain fails, and the communication ultimately cannot be trusted.

Consider the various "links" comprising God's communication to us: first came God's desire to communicate. This was rooted in His love, for the most loving thing a good God can do is reveal Himself to His creation. Next came the actual transmission of God's Word through human writers. This involved a process the Bible calls "inspiration," in which God breathed the words that the human agents recorded (2 Timothy 3:16). After that came dissemination, as the Word was delivered to its audience through preaching or other means. Then came recognition, as God's people distinguished Holy Scripture from other religious writings. And then, preservation, through which God's Word has survived to the present day, despite many attempts to destroy it. And finally, illumination, as the Holy Spirit opens the believer's understanding to receive the Word.

And that's the "chain"--the demonstration of God's love in the inspiration, dissemination, recognition, preservation, and illumination of His Word. We believe that God was involved in each step of the process, for why would God go to such lengths to inspire His Word and then not preserve it? Why would He speak to us and then fail to guide us in recognizing His speech?

This recognition of God's Word is usually called "canonization." We are careful to say that God determined the canon, and the church discovered the canon. The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception--it "stands firm in the heavens" (Psalm 119:89)--and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it.

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction?
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?

Of these criteria, the one of most importance was the first one--was the book written by a prophet? Its corollary, did the book receive apostolic approval?, was the chief test of canonicity in the early church. This criterion is a logical result of knowing what an "apostle" was. The apostles were gifted by God to be the founders and leaders of the church, so it is reasonable to accept that through them came the Word governing the church.

The apostles were promised the Spirit of truth who would bring to their remembrance what Christ had said (John 14:26) and guide them into "all truth" (John 16:13). After the ascension of Christ, the apostles received supernatural gifts to enable their work and confirm their message (Acts 2:4). God's household is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20). Given the apostles' special commission, it only makes sense that the church made apostolicity the number-one test of canonicity. Thus, the Gospel of Matthew was considered canonical (it was written by an apostle); and the Gospel of Mark, with its close association with the Apostle Peter, was also accepted.

When the New Testament was being written, the individual books and letters were immediately accepted as God's Word and circulated for the benefits of others. The church of Thessalonica received Paul's word as the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Paul's epistles were circulating among the churches even during apostolic times (Colossians 4:16). Peter recognized Paul's writings as inspired by God and equated them with "the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Paul quoted the Gospel of Luke and called it "Scripture" (1 Timothy 5:18). This widespread acceptance stands in stark contrast to the few debated books, eventually rejected as non-canonical, that enjoyed a limited favor for a time.

Later, as heresy increased and some within the church began clamoring for the acceptance of spurious religious writings, the church wisely held a council to officially confirm their acceptance of the 27 New Testament books. The criteria they used allowed them to objectively distinguish what God had given them from that of human origin. They concluded that they would stay with the books that were universally accepted. In so doing, they determined to continue in "the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42).

Blackflag: And you still haven't explained how a non-christian has a basis for believing in the laws of logic. I offered a rebuttal to your claim that the argument is circular reasoning. But since you ignored it, I'll copy and paste the rebuttal here for you to reply.

Yes, and the Bible is the ultimate standard for knowing knowledge. Everyone has to have an ultimate standard for epistemology. An ultimate standard always has to refer back to itself for support; that's just the nature of it. Let's say you know "a" because of "b". Well, how do you know "b"? You could say, "because of 'c'". How do you know "c"? Because of "d". And it just goes on. Well, the stairs can't go on forever. There is an ultimate standard. Let's say, for this example, that the ultimate standard is "t". Well how do you know "t"? At this point, you have no choice but to say "because of 't'". Every ultimate standard has to resort to circular reasoning. But this circular reasoning isn't fallacious. It's only fallacious when you can have another presupposition to go on. But eventually, the stairs end somewhere. The only other option is an infinite regress - an logical impossibility. So there has to be an ultimate standard. And that ultimate standard is the Bible because it alone provides the foundation for the laws of logic, the standard for all reasoning.

So using the Bible to prove the Bible is not fallacious. Take this argument for example:

1. If there are no laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
2. We can make an argument.
3. Therefore, the laws of logic exist.

This is a valid and sound argument, but it is in fact circular reasoning because we are assuming the laws of logic to prove that they exist. So even though it is circular reasoning, it is perfectly fine in a case like this.

Does this mean that that the laws of logic are the ultimate standard? Not exactly; we have to have a reason to believe the laws of logic. And that reason is the Bible. The laws of logic and the biblical God are interestingly synonymous. The laws of logic are immaterial, unchanging, and are universal. Interestingly, these are the characteristics of God.

So when you use the laws of logic, you are assuming Biblical presuppositions.

Krazy: I still don't get it. How do you determine authenticity, falsehood, and acceptance? Perhaps you can better explain why the writers of the NVT bible are the truth, and all the other bibles are a lie?

I mean, that site admits to having both Protestants and Catholic ministers, so right there they obviously have disagreements on what should be categorized under which.

And you still haven't explained how a non-christian has a basis for believing in the laws of logic.
Yes, I ignored your argument because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

My first theory is that this is just incomprehensible nonsense, which means I couldn't reply even if I wanted too. The second possibility is that you just did a poor job explaining it, which means I can reply after you explain it in a way I can better understand.

BTW, my personal opinion is that it is impossible to logically justify God in accordance with modern day standards of proof. People whose faith is built on the basis of logic, actually do not have any faith to begin with. They are fake believers, and in respect to my first point, probably a bit stubborn. The only proof of God lies in the Holy Spirit, not a thought process brought up a 1000 years ago.

Blackflag: Lol, not at all.
Do they not have an elected government? I think you'll find they have an elected government.

The state has an active policy of persecuting non-muslims.
Again, the situation is more complex. The Islamic courts and, to some extent, the current executive do. But it's worth noting, for example, that their chief judge is appointed by an elected committee, with no tenure.

Their were also UN reports on the suppression of Kurds and Bahai
Because they're not among the 4 protected religions with their own religious courts (muslims, christians, jews and zoroastrians) so they are tried under a muslim court. This is what this suppression amounts to.

admin: And by the way, I don't mean to legitimize that suppression, I just feel like it shouldn't be misrepresented. It's not "Iran is evil" or "Islam is evil".

Do they not have an elected government? I think you'll find they have an elected government.
Well the most powerful man in Iran is not elected.

Iran definitely isn't a democracy though. The United States isn't a democracy, and neither is New Zealand. Democracies have direct vote.

Again, the situation is more complex. The Islamic courts and, to some extent, the current executive do. But it's worth noting, for example, that their chief judge is appointed by an elected committee, with no tenure.
I was thinking more about their military. Iran has about 5 special units specifically designed for population control.

This is what this suppression amounts to
No it doesn't. Suppression amounts to extrajudicial killings and an active state policy of persecuting Jews, Christians, and Bahai. It is easy for countries to hide behind a constitution, but don't be brainwashed so easily.

Also there is something evil, if not twisted, about producing weapons of mass destruction in order to protect an ideology. I don't want Iran's peace missiles.

Blackflag: "Most powerful man" is arguable. Regardless if you're referring to the ayatollah, who is the head of the Islamic branch of the judiciary (not a lawmaker as he is often fallaciously painted by western media), then he's appointed every few years by an elected body. The body who decides the ayatollah are appointed by public election. So he is not above the people's mandate either, just a more convoluted process.

Democracy is a broader term than direct democracy. Indirect democracy may not be your preferred form of democracy, but it is still democratic to a degree.

Population control... actually I think Iran of all countries in the region has been the most liberal in this field in the past few years, especially since the government banned advertising of many contraceptives last year. I think Ahmadinejad called for this about a decade ago if I remember right. So the government policy has been to increase the population growth rate for a while now.

If you're saying the killings are extrajudicial, then you have no right to blame the Iranian government or its leaders for them. You should be blaming whoever you think the killers are.

Can you cite me the "active state policy of persecuting Jews, Christians, and Bahai" please? Because I'm certain the Iranian government has approved no such policy.

Blackflag: People said the same thing about Russia and the USA during the cold war.

"Most powerful man" is arguable
No it isn't. The supreme leader can appoint any post in the government and make executive decisions that override the president.

Population control... actually I think Iran of all countries in the region has been the most liberal in this field in the past few years,
I literally meant the killing and the jailing of minority groups. Go to the Iranian embassy, you will see native demonstrations of this every day.

You should be blaming whoever you think the killers are
Iran

Because I'm certain the Iranian government has approved no such policy
Lol, you can be pretty naive

North Korea officially has freedom of religion, despite it being the number one country of religious persecution. Same deal with Iran

People said the same thing about Russia and the USA during the cold war
Nonetheless, Iran producing "peace" missiles to protect a radical strand of Islam is twisted

And why do you think those courts you keep talking about exist?

They exist to ensure that everyone is Shia Islam, guarantee that everyone supports the revolution, and attempt to make no one question the government.
---------------------------------
The supreme leader appoints half of the council which elects him!

Yeah, that is very democratic... When he takes power he will have the ability to appoint 75% of the positions in government, and be given access to the SCUD launch codes