Originally Posted by: LordathestringsPerhaps Jolian could help to answer my question from the "Touchy Subject" thread:

Originally Posted by: Lordathestrings
Could a Muslim please explain to me how rioting, burning churches, and killing a nun serve to repudiate the claim that Islam fosters violence?[/QUOTE]



I think the quality of any group, be it a club, a government, or a religion, can be assessed by how that group deals with those who disagree with them. This twisted concept that makes it acceptable in the sight of Allah to kill anyone whose belief is not sufficiently 'pure' is the same insanity that prevailed during the "Reign of Terror" after the French Revolution. Then, as now, it had nothing to do with purity - it was an assertion of power under the threat of violence. The killer mullahs are simply modern Robespierres in turbans. And just as despicable.

[QUOTE=jolian]Lordathestrings

The Christians most likely killed WAY more protestants, Jews and 'Indian's in South America. Also, North Americans killing the natives and all that. Islam also has its extremists. I don't see what's your point..

Pointing out the terrible things done by people who claim to follow one religion can never justify terrible things done by people who claim to follow a different religion. Both groups are wrong. Their actions are seen to be wrong, not only by people of differing faiths, but by clear-thinking followers of the religion in question.

My point is that any religion can be perverted by those who lust for power. Such so-called leaders are the true infidels, misleading thousands of poorly-informed followers in actions that run counter to the faith they claim to profess. Christianity has certainly suffered this torment, and caused others to suffer also. And yet countries founded and built by Christians, on Christian principals, are the only truly free counties on Earth. And the wealthiest. And the most productive. And home to the most advanced technologies. And the major sources of aid given to other countries. The concept that there can be no separation between Islamic religion and Islamic government is an example of how a religious faith can be perverted by those who would impose their will on others who don't know any better. I don't think it is an unrelated coincidence that countries under Islamic rule have such large portions of their populations kept in relative ignorance and poverty. People who are well-fed, healthy, earn a high standard of living, and have a broad education that allows them to compare many points of view, would not tolerate the abuses of power that are routinely accepted in so-called Muslim societies. The part of the world that is now called Iraq was once the cradle of modern civilization. Our mathematics is based upon priciples that were discovered and refined by Arabs who lived in a society that encouraged exploration and examination of all facets of human capability. To see what such a once-admirable civilization has been reduced to...

My question asking how violent mobs can demonstrate the non-violent nature of Islam seems simple enough: If Islam is indeed a religion that promotes tolerance of others who hold different opinions - if Islam is in truth non-violent, then such mobs, and those who cause them to behave like wild beasts, cannot be true Muslims.

The frustration felt by the Muslim Brotherhood is self-inflicted. They cannot persuade mainstream Muslims to join them, because one of their basic tenets is the assumption that anyone whose faith is not sufficiently pure is an acceptable target for violence. Who decides which members are pure, and which members are not pure? The leaders, of course. And who are the leaders? Men who have demonstrated such eagerness to be violent that no one else dares to oppose them! Obviously this is not a group that will appeal to the mainstream of any society, even one born into Muslim traditions. The sad fact is that if a Muslim dies a violent death, their murderer is most likely to be someone who claims to be Muslim.

This is the debate the Pope was asking all religious thinkers to join in. The basis of his position is that religious faith is not something that can be "spread by the sword". He was not supporting the views held by the Emperor that he quoted; merely using that ancient discussion to show that the basic issues have still not been resolved hundreds of years later. And the rioting mobs that were whipped into a murderous frenzy by those who claim to be Muslims, did nothing to convince the world that their beliefs are right, or valid, or in any way good in the sight of man or God.