Violence in Islam
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2017, 04:44 PM
Violence in Islam
I have heard the argument that violence in Islam is only prescribed in self defense and that any verse that condones violence is doing so in the context of an ongoing attack started by someone else.

What are your thoughts ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 04:50 PM
RE: Violence in Islam
I think that the koran, like the bible, can be cherry-picked and interpreted to mean anything you want it to mean. People don't get things from their scriptures so much as find confirmation for what they already believe.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like unfogged's post
25-01-2017, 05:00 PM
RE: Violence in Islam
More than you'll ever want to know about it.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674830

18,19,20

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 05:15 PM
RE: Violence in Islam
(25-01-2017 04:44 PM)momo666 Wrote:  I have heard the argument that violence in Islam is only prescribed in self defense and that any verse that condones violence is doing so in the context of an ongoing attack started by someone else.

What are your thoughts ?
I think any faith based philosophy will ultimately lead to violence. That's because faith and force are corollaries just as reason and trade are corollaries. When faith is the standard, how can one persuade others to believe. The only recourse to settle the issue of who's right and who's wrong will be a club and we've seen this all throughout history. We see this with Christianity which ultimately relies of the threat of physical torture, because they can't make a rational argument for their beliefs. We see this with Islam. Heck, we see this among the different sects of Islam. Religions are primitive, tribal philosophies and such will always lead to wars.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 05:39 PM
RE: Violence in Islam
My thoughts are that self-defence is only valid in the context of an attack that is physically in progress.

Revenge attacks and killing of noncombatants are not acts of self-defence; they are murder.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Astreja's post
25-01-2017, 07:33 PM
RE: Violence in Islam
It's a bit like Bill O'Reilly saying that a Christian terrorist is a contradiction in terms.

By his very narrow conception of Christianity, yes it is. Similarly, by the very narrow conception of Islam of whoever told you this, Islam is not about violence.

Do the religious texts match up with that? No. Or at least, not unambiguously. In fact, you have to twist things pretty hard to make them say that.

Do the people who call themselves Christians and Muslims behave according to that? No. Some do. Some don't.

Does hearing someone identify themselves as a Christian or Muslim mean you can assume that they're peaceful, not-violent, and not going to kill you? No. Not any more than you can assume that about anyone. A bit less, actually.

The fact of the matter is that there have been and still are Christians and Muslims who murder in the name of their religions, and are inspired to do so by their religious doctrines and religious texts, to the point where it would be hard to argue that they would still be doing that WITHOUT the religion.

Regardless of whether that's how the religion is supposed to be in the abstract.... and it's a hard case to be made that either of these are religions of peace, even in the abstract... who the fuck cares? We don't live in the abstract.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 02:03 PM
RE: Violence in Islam
Just like any religion there are shitty people in it. Every religious person thinks they are in the right one, and that there actions are backed up by their power wizard. And every one (religions) of them claims to have the best approach to solving problems. All with the thought their god/'s are on their side.

Islamist even the peaceful ones will agree with violence for a means to an ends. When questioned I'd they agree with shareal law, they will most likely say yes.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 02:15 PM
RE: Violence in Islam
(25-01-2017 05:39 PM)Astreja Wrote:  My thoughts are that self-defence is only valid in the context of an attack that is physically in progress.

Revenge attacks and killing of noncombatants are not acts of self-defence; they are murder.

I agree for the most part.

But let's take it a step further.

Is, for instance, a first-strike against an enemy that is in the process of planning an attack a form of self-defence, even though the attack itself has not yet take place?

For example, the British commando attack on the heavy-water plant in Norway (made famous in the movie and book A Man Called Intrepid). The Nazi war machine was in the process of making heavy water as a necessary component of developing fuel for a nuclear weapon.

But the weapon had not yet been developed, much less used.

Was it moral to attack and destroy the plant (some soldiers died in the process) before the weapon was used?

(More cool stuff about the operation here: Heavy Water and the Norwegians)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 04:35 PM
RE: Violence in Islam
Quote:For example, the British commando attack on the heavy-water plant in Norway (made famous in the movie and book A Man Called Intrepid).


Bad analogy - Britain was already at war with Germany.

Better analogy - Dubya convinced himself that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to launch an attack on the US with WMDs. He did this by ignoring any information to the contrary and accepting only those parts which supported his already-determined course of action. In the process, he fucked up the middle east for the rest of the century.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
29-01-2017, 02:08 AM
RE: Violence in Islam
(28-01-2017 02:15 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 05:39 PM)Astreja Wrote:  My thoughts are that self-defence is only valid in the context of an attack that is physically in progress.

Revenge attacks and killing of noncombatants are not acts of self-defence; they are murder.

I agree for the most part.

But let's take it a step further.

Is, for instance, a first-strike against an enemy that is in the process of planning an attack a form of self-defence, even though the attack itself has not yet take place?

For example, the British commando attack on the heavy-water plant in Norway (made famous in the movie and book A Man Called Intrepid). The Nazi war machine was in the process of making heavy water as a necessary component of developing fuel for a nuclear weapon.

But the weapon had not yet been developed, much less used.

Was it moral to attack and destroy the plant (some soldiers died in the process) before the weapon was used?

Given that GB was at war with III Reich at this time I see nothing immoral in this attack, especially in light of Nazi actions. Even possibility of them having nuclear weapon was nightmarish.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: