>Islam doesn't promote violence or peace. Islam is just a religion and like every religion in the world it depends on what you bring to it. If you're a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism is gonna be violent. There are marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar slaughtering women and children. Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not. People are violent or peaceful and that depends on their politics, their social world, the ways that they see their communities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw
>>55798060
>Islam is just a religion and like every religion
then why are people following it, if it just just. like. every. religion.
i keep saying this but not a single muzzie i have talked to have given a good answer.
Islam is supposed to be THE CORRECT WAY, the version that is the best the most perfect, if it weren't why aren't you just christian.
Culture is ethnicity, geoprahical location and language over a long period of time which in turn produces traditions.
it's not just one of those things, it's not just food or language, it is all of them combined.
becuase if the answer is "Islam is our culture" how about you get the fuck out of Europe.
I've never heard of a buddhist terrorist.
I don't know, I thought that the greatest threat to european civilization for centuries would be worth being cautious about.
>>55798502
First answer, best answer.
Sweden, yes.
>Reza Aslan
The Zoey Quinn of religion
https://youtu.be/sJGRsLbBf_k
>>55798060
So the media is just putting out empirically incorrect information now in order to save face?
>>55798502
>>55798840
>>55798951
>>55799152
>>55799214
The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.
>>55798060
If Islam really is a religion like any other, why was then their biggest paragon of virtue a bickering warlord that was ever ready to execute his prisoners for his own selfish reasons? Shouldn't the actions of a man of such importance logically affect the actions of his later followers?
>>55798840
There do exist Buddhist terrorists though, like the ones in Shri Lanka.
http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/
>reza aslan
kafir
>Islam is just a religion and like every religion in the world it depends on what you bring to it.
And Arabs bring a lot of passion to their stoneage religion.
>>55798060
>Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not.
So why exactly is it that there's an appeal to Buddhism here? Like, the argument is going, "well there are some violent Buddhists out there, but OF COURSE we all know that Buddhism isn't violent." Why is it that "we all know" that Buddhism isn't violent? Why is that a convincing argument? Is it that there's something about Buddhists that's less violent than Muslims? That maybe Muslims commit a lot more violence around the world than Buddhists do, and that's why Buddhism gets a reputation as being the peace-loving hippy religion in the West?
Is his argument that it's impossible for any religion to inherently promote violence? That doesn't seem reasonable. One could imagine a hypothetical extreme religion where the one undeniable commandment is that God demands that all non-believers must be slain. If that was the religion, and that religion had no other aspects to the worldview, wouldn't that be a religion that promotes violence?
So, if the argument is that, despite it being possible for a religion to promote violence, Islam doesn't fit the necessary criteria... what would it take for a religion to fulfill the criteria? That is, imagine a religion that DOES promote violence. What is the bare minimum that that religion would need to have before it promotes violence?
If you can't imagine a situation where a hypothetical religion promotes violence, then you're just playing games with tautologies and semantics.
>>55798060
>Islam doesn't promote violence
> 537 passages in the Quran promoted violence against non-believers and apostates
> not counting violence promoted for other reasons
The only way to believe the apologist bullshit is to never, ever, ever read the Quran.
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
