or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| The Religion of Peace |
ETWolverine |
09/19/06 |
I have a few questions about the Islam, the so-called "religion of peace".
The Muslim world has been protesting for the past few days over the comments made by Pope Benedict XVI regarding Islam being a nation founded on violence. These protests have been extremely violent, and have resulted in a number of deaths, including the murders of Christians, destruction of churches, threats of global war and assassination of the Pope, burning of embassies, etc.
My questions are:
1) Doesn't this violent style of protest prove the Popes point about Islam being a violent religion?
2) I have heard several people say that violence and terrorism doesn't really represent all Muslims, and that nothing could ever represent all of Islam because there are so many differing oppinions within Islam. Yet, it has become clear to me that Islam shows great unity in its protests of the Pope. Whether the protests are violent or not, the Muslim world is pretty well united in condemning the Pope's remarks. So why are they unable to create the same unity to condemn terrorism?
3) Why is it that even when a few Muslim groups condemn violence, they do so with half-hearted condemnations, excuses, and with blame for others for causing the violence? Why can't they just issue a blanket condemnation of violence as a method of promoting Islam, without any caveats, excuses or blame? Something simple and straightforward like "We condemn violence by Muslims against anyone." No blaming America or Israel for the anger on the Muslim street that causes the terrorism. No excuses that they were offended by some offhand remark or ation. Just a blanket condemnation of violence by Muslims against anyone, no matter who.
4) In Israel, there is a strong and active "peace-now" movement. In the USA, the peace movement is quite vocal (perhaps too vocal). Australia's peace movement has been very active over the past several years. Europe seems to be made up of nothing but the peace movement. The UK opposition political parties seem to be part of the peace movement. But where is the Muslim peace movement? Why are Islamic countries the only ones that don't have an active peace movement agitating for world peace? Why is the so-called "religion of peace" so lacking in peace activists and peace-protestors? If violence is not supported by the majority of Muslims and doesn't represent the beliefs of the majority of Muslims, why aren't the majority of Muslims protesting in the streets (peacefully) against the terrorists and the rioters? Should we take their silence as tacit support of the violence, disinterest in the issues, or simply fear of reprecussions? And if it is fear of reprecussions, doesn't that mean that Islam has been hijacked by the jihadists, and really is no longer a religion of peace, but of violence and fear?
These are just a few questions based on my observations of the "religion of peace".
Elliot |
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
