Why do islam hates people?

[redsn0w]

We should analyze the word 'terrorism'. Everyone who provide terror (a real terror) to a group of person with a weapon, knife etcetera ... By the definition is a terrorist, now the history can speak itself because not all the Muslim are terrorist and not all the terrorist are muslim. I think it's wrong to link the word Islam to the word terrorism, can you explain to us why aren't all the muslim terrorists?

Thanks for your input. Was the last questions to me? I didn't get you correctly. I should prove all muslims aren't terrorist?

No, it is not only for you but for all who "watching" this thread. They should prove that all the muslim are terrorists and why the most victim of those attacks are muslims. I really can't understand this theory because I have a lot of friends from numerous Religion (jewish, muslim, hinduism,Sikhism and christianity) and none of them is a terrorist.

Strawman logical fallacy.    Misrepresent the opponent's argument, exggerate  and distort it, claim it is the argument he has, and then show you ridiculous it is and claim you've disproved "his" argument.

No I have only asked to demonstrate that all the muslims are terrorists, if someone can do it I think he should write a paper and spread it online. I think no one can demonstrate at 100% that Islam means terrorism (sorry for the previous post, I hope you will understand the concept). I think all we know what is mean the word "Islam", isn't it?

This is exactly the definition of the "strawman logical fallacy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Ok no problem, it was only a question to see if someone can prove that "be a muslim" means "be a terrorist". There is not a logical fallacy, it is only an opinion. Thanks for your opinion.

[1714768444]

1714768444

[1714768444]

1714768444

[1714768444]

1714768444

[1714768444]

1714768444

[1714768444]

1714768444

[1714768444]

1714768444

[Spendulus]

Ok no problem, it was only a question to see if someone can prove that "be a muslim" means "be a terrorist". There is not a logical fallacy, it is only an opinion. Thanks for your opinion.

I understand that was how you were asked the question and that it was not you making the Strawman argument.

Of course it makes no sense to me because I have many Muslim friends and they have about the same attitude about terrorism as I do.  But then I suspect there is a vast difference between relatively secular Muslims in the USA and those in say Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

[redsn0w]

Ok no problem, it was only a question to see if someone can prove that "be a muslim" means "be a terrorist". There is not a logical fallacy, it is only an opinion. Thanks for your opinion.

I understand that was how you were asked the question and that it was not you making the Strawman argument.

Of course it makes no sense to me because I have many Muslim friends and they have about the same attitude about terrorism as I do.  But then I suspect there is a vast difference between relatively secular Muslims in the USA and those in say Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

As I said previously I have also a lot of friend (from a various Religion) and none of them is "by definition" violent/rude and it is normal and obvious that all the religions/faiths don't teach the violence but them teach the peace the interchange between the various religion. So I can say that Islam doesn't hate people.

[Spendulus]

Ok no problem, it was only a question to see if someone can prove that "be a muslim" means "be a terrorist". There is not a logical fallacy, it is only an opinion. Thanks for your opinion.

I understand that was how you were asked the question and that it was not you making the Strawman argument.

Of course it makes no sense to me because I have many Muslim friends and they have about the same attitude about terrorism as I do.  But then I suspect there is a vast difference between relatively secular Muslims in the USA and those in say Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

As I said previously I have also a lot of friend (from a various Religion) and none of them is "by definition" violent/rude and it is normal and obvious that all the religions/faiths don't teach the violence but them teach the peace the interchange between the various religion. So I can say that Islam doesn't hate people.

I understand this point of view.  However let me point out there are very few religions that do teach to stone women who are adultererous, to cut off hands and feet of thieves.  This is violence dictated by Islam.  Christianity does not practice this.  Nowhere.  Neither does Hindu.

My interest in this thread is more accurate stated like "how is Islam perverted into the teaching and use of terrorism - violence against innocent women and children." 

[Muhammed Zakir]

I understand this point of view.  However let me point out there are very few religions that do teach to stone women who are adultererous, to cut off hands and feet of thieves.  This is violence dictated by Islam.  Christianity does not practice this.  Nowhere.  Neither does Hindu.

I understand this view too. FYI: Stoning and these things are also mentioned in Bible.

My interest in this thread is more accurate stated like "how is Islam perverted into the teaching and use of terrorism - violence against innocent women and children."  

Good to know. Thanks for telling.

First of all, what is the meaning of innocent?

"Free from moral wrong;without sin;pure."

"Free from legal wrong; guiltless."

"Not involving evil intent or motive;harmless."

Do you think cheating a spouse is innocence? I don't think so.

Why I like some of the punishments are because:

• Will decrease cheatings.
• Will help people as it decrease theft.
• Will help women and childer to be safe as it decreases rape and sexual violence.
• Will help people to be safe as it decreases many evil things.

See the comparison of rapes in different countries, for example.



Comparison of selected countries' reported rape rates, 2012.

You can see rape at the national level, number of police-recorded offenses - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

[BADecker]

Comparison of selected countries' reported rape rates, 2012.

You can see rape at the national level, number of police-recorded offenses - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

The above chart looks impressive. However, it is hard to judge based on one kind of chart.

If a country and its people are free, aren't they going to be able to do more things freely? Some of those things are going to be good, and some of them will be bad.

In free countries, does the media and government give more accurate, truthful information to statisticians who make charts than in non-free countries?

[Spendulus]

I understand this point of view.  However let me point out there are very few religions that do teach to stone women who are adultererous, to cut off hands and feet of thieves.  This is violence dictated by Islam.  Christianity does not practice this.  Nowhere.  Neither does Hindu.

I understand this view too. FYI: Stoning and these things are also mentioned in Bible.

Noticed I said practiced.

....

Why I like some of the punishments are because:

• Will decrease cheatings.
• Will help people as it decrease theft.
• Will help women and childer to be safe as it decreases rape and sexual violence.
• Will help people to be safe as it decreases many evil things.

You admit this is violence dictated by Islam.

You admit you approve of these violent methods as proscribed in the Koran.

You admit the Islam is a violent religion.

NOTE:  I understand your viewpoint is that acts of violence by society against rule breakers might lower overall violence.  However, this only proves that Islam is violent.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I understand this point of view.  However let me point out there are very few religions that do teach to stone women who are adultererous, to cut off hands and feet of thieves.  This is violence dictated by Islam.  Christianity does not practice this.  Nowhere.  Neither does Hindu.

I understand this view too. FYI: Stoning and these things are also mentioned in Bible.

Noticed I said practiced.

You admit this is violence dictated by Islam.

You admit you approve of these violent methods.

Thank you! This isn't widely practiced one though.

No, I said "understand" not "admitted". In your point of you, it is violence. However, I think sometimes it is good to keep other humans secure.

[Spendulus]

I understand this point of view.  However let me point out there are very few religions that do teach to stone women who are adultererous, to cut off hands and feet of thieves.  This is violence dictated by Islam.  Christianity does not practice this.  Nowhere.  Neither does Hindu.

I understand this view too. FYI: Stoning and these things are also mentioned in Bible.

Noticed I said practiced.

You admit this is violence dictated by Islam.

You admit you approve of these violent methods.

Thank you! This isn't widely practiced one though.

No, I said "understand" not "admitted". In your point of you, it is violence. However, I think sometimes it is good to keep other humans secure.

Then you can see how your opponents in this discussion are right when they say "Islam is violent."  Now, notice that "Islam hates" is a very different thing.

[thebitcoinquiz.com]

Don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists but 98% of the terrorists are Muslims(excluding America from terrorist group, though they aren't anything less than terrorists).

Excluding US? That is one big mistake. Secondly, how you got 98%? One of the biggest estimation I have ever seen which is lie. There are Christians, Jews and other people who kill and you got 98%?

Also most of the victims are Muslims because we (the non Muslim countries) have somehow been able to defend ourselves a lot from the growth of ideology of radical Islam in our nations and so the Muslims have been confined to their own countries, and so they get divided amongst themselves(sunnis shias) and start killing each other.

Joke? Can you backup this claim?

Why exclude US?

I think you mistook me.
I excluded the US cause they don't do it in the name of the religion, but yes, they are no less to terrorists, they are worse than the people in the middle east, I was just talking about the crimes that are done on the name of religion, and that's why I excluded US. US is included in the domain of terrorists but if you apply the function of crimes done on the name of religion then in the range you'll only get Muslims.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Then you can see how your opponents in this discussion are right when they say "Islam is violent."  Now, notice that "Islam hates" is a very different thing.

What you pointed and what other people say about Islamic violence is different. Frankly, I like that punishment as it will protect many people. In a country without these punishments, people won't have enough fear when committing.

 I try my best to view in their view when replying. I think like redsn0w mentioned. If some people do bad things, you shouldn't blame the religion/community/country.

[Spendulus]

Then you can see how your opponents in this discussion are right when they say "Islam is violent."  Now, notice that "Islam hates" is a very different thing.

What you pointed and what other people say about Islamic violence is different. Frankly, I like that punishment as it will protect many people. In a country without these punishments, people won't have enough fear when committing.

 I try my best to view in their view when replying. I think like redsn0w mentioned. If some people do bad things, you shouldn't be blame the religion/community/country.

Okay, fine.  But you'll just have to admit you were wrong on "Islam does not tell people to kill" and "Islam is not violent."

Again, "Islam hates" is different.  A judge in a courtroom is unlikely to be hating when he sentences someone.  At least he should not.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I think you mistook me.
I excluded the US cause they don't do it in the name of the religion, but yes, they are no less to terrorists, they are worse than the people in the middle east, I was just talking about the crimes that are done on the name of religion, and that's why I excluded US. US is included in the domain of terrorists but if you apply the function of crimes done on the name of religion then in the range you'll only get Muslims.

Okay. Understood what you werr saying. Only isn't good, however. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews etc..., all have attacked in the name of religion. But whether it was really a religious attack or an imitation is yet to be discussed. 98% is still wrong in this point of view.

[BADecker]

Then you can see how your opponents in this discussion are right when they say "Islam is violent."  Now, notice that "Islam hates" is a very different thing.

This is the best point. The only time anybody can hate, is when they become involved deeply. You don't hate things that you are not involved with, or that you know very little about.

Islam is a religion. It is a system of belief. Islam itself doesn't do anything, good, bad or indifferent, until it gets into the hearts and minds of people.

People who simply practice some aspects of a religion, may not be that religion. But people who become deeply involved with that religion, actually become the religion they are deeply involved with. This is the time that the religion does something. When people become involved with it... not before.

What will an Islamite do who is deeply involved with his religion?
Is a violent Islamite one who is deeply involved with Islam?
Is a hateful Islamite one who is deeply involved with Islam?
Is a loving Islamite one who is deeply involved with Islam?
Is a peaceful Islamite one who is deeply involved with Islam?

Islam doesn't do anything without people being involved.
People are not Islam if they are only involved in Islam a little... even if they SAY that they are deeply involved.


And the big one... Do people who are deeply involved in Islam actually change Islam into something that it is not - in their minds and hearts - because Islam is too good for them to accept, or because it is too bad for them to except?

[Muhammed Zakir]

Okay, fine.  But you'll just have to admit you were wrong on "Islam does not tell people to kill" and "Islam is not violent."

Again, "Islam hates" is different.  A judge in a courtroom is unlikely to be hating when he sentences someone.  At least he should not.

Okay. But still there are many reasons for killing a person, everything isn't violence when you consider about life, however, by definition, every thing(religion and law - incl. islam) have few things which looks like violence.

 But where does Islam hates "people"? Islam doesn't hate non-muslims because they aren't muslims. This is where I don't get you and/or others.

[Spendulus]

Then you can see how your opponents in this discussion are right when they say "Islam is violent."  Now, notice that "Islam hates" is a very different thing.

This is the best point. The only time anybody can hate, is when they become involved deeply. You don't hate things that you are not involved with, or that you know very little about.....

That's true.  I can't hate Islam because I don't care about Islam (from one point of view this is WORSE than caring about it.)

I can't hate gays and gay marriage because I couldn't care less about gays and gay marriage.

Those Islam dudes tossing the gays off the tall buildings, they are haters.  It would seem.

The Islam judge or cleric ordering someone's hand to be cut off is probably not a hater, but is certainly representing the violence of Islam.

[Muhammed Zakir]

This is the best point. The only time anybody can hate, is when they become involved deeply. You don't hate things that you are not involved with, or that you know very little about.

Islam is a religion. It is a system of belief. Islam itself doesn't do anything, good, bad or indifferent, until it gets into the hearts and minds of people.

People who simply practice some aspects of a religion, may not be that religion. But people who become deeply involved with that religion, actually become the religion they are deeply involved with. This is the time that the religion does something. When people become involved with it... not before.

Even an extemist muslim doesn't have any commands from Islam to kill innocents.

What will an Islamite do who is deeply involved with his religion?
Is a violent Islamite one who is deeply involved with Islam?
Is a hateful Islamite one who is deeply involved with Islam?
Is a loving Islamite one who is deeply involved with Islam?
Is a peaceful Islamite one who is deeply involved with Islam?

You can't find an extremist like in the time of Prophet(PBUH). More years pass, the less Islamic belief you see. An Islamite will pray at most of his time and don't bother doing most other things. No "real" Islamite hate others. Hurting a person when you hate him/her is questionable in the day of judgement.

And the big one... Do people who are deeply involved in Islam actually change Islam into something that it is not - in their minds and hearts - because Islam is too good for them to accept, or because it is too bad for them to except?

The problem is people who want to do bad things brainwash others by changing Islam. They ain't Islamite even by practice or by definition.

[thebitcoinquiz.com]

I think you mistook me.
I excluded the US cause they don't do it in the name of the religion, but yes, they are no less to terrorists, they are worse than the people in the middle east, I was just talking about the crimes that are done on the name of religion, and that's why I excluded US. US is included in the domain of terrorists but if you apply the function of crimes done on the name of religion then in the range you'll only get Muslims.

Okay. Understood what you werr saying. Only isn't good, however. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews etc..., all have attacked in the name of religion. But whether it was really a religious attack or an imitation is yet to be discussed. 98% is still wrong in this point of view.

I hope you know the difference between communal riots and terrorism on the name of religion.
What you are talking about, the "Sikhs, Hindus, etcetc" have also attacked are a part of communal riots.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I hope you know the difference between communal riots and terrorism on the name of religion.
What you are talking about, the "Sikhs, Hindus, etcetc" have also attacked are a part of communal riots.

These type of posts obviously say laws are unjust for Muslims. What muslims do is religious violence and people from other religions do is communal violence.

To your doubt: Even in Wikipedia, it is mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India.

Communal violence is religious violence if religions involve in it and it is obvious, what I said do have it.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Just a suggestion, I think this thread has got enough points/statements. So isn't it good to lock this thread?


I might not post here like I used it. Don't think it is because I can't answer your questions and/or arguments. My English is poor and I can't express what is in my mind through English which makes it worse than better. It will be easy if I know English better or you know Malayalam(my mother tounge/local language).

It was good debating with you. I also got some new knowledge. Thank you all! Looking forward to meet you in other threads of this forum or in other places of great virtual world or even in greatest, real world. Best of luck!