Just thinking,

In recent times we've seen the spate of religious intolerance across the globe and we are left wondering what has happened to the question of free speech. Is the violence resulting from religious protests (all types) and upheavals warranted at all? How far should free speech be tolerated? Have the recent violence by moslems done any good to convince people that Islam is a peaceful religion? These are some of the questions that beg for answers.

Readers are invited to make meaningful inputs to this thread in the hope of achieving a common dialogue across board.

4gt_m.

And may you be forgotten and committed into oblivion (Amin ase edumare)

Listen, razor mouth:
Maybe you should have posted it this way: Do Reckless Speeches Incite Religious Strife?

And we definitely don't need to convince people like you that Islam is a religion of peace. It definitely is. Par excellence! We only do to you what you do to us. Remember, there's no smoke without fire. To every action there's an equal or opposite reaction.

@ Ajisafe
The best way to convince someone that you're peaceful is not by launching into acrid missives. By so doing, did you just prove that your religion is indeed violent? While it is legitimate for anyone to say whatever they feel, the topic is quite legitimate as well; and it would make a lot of sense to pass your comments as sanely as possible and devoid of caustic sentiments. You have failed to show that Islam is nonviolent.

I think Islam is a religion of peace but <snip>

Most religions are religions of peace. It's only that a substantial number of religious people, when confronted with dissenting opinions, feel justified in putting down that dissent, as they feel their God is behind them. The suspension of critical thought that accompanies religion is a dangerous thing that can incite religious people to do immoral things.

I think Stephen Weinberg summarised it perfectly:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

@ nferyn, I'm sorry to say that your quoting Stephen Weinberg severally here and in other threads does not make real sense. It is true that many people have done many evil things under the excuse of religion, but religion itself does not necessary have to be the raison d'etre for evil things done by good people. Weinberg is a physicist who won a nobel prize for his work in physics - he did not win a nobel prize in matters of faith or religion so he is the least qualified to talk about religion. Many 'good' people in businesses have done evil things without recourse to religion - the guys at Enron who pulled the largest bankruptcy in US history started out as 'good' business people, until the scales fell. It didn't take religion for that to have happen, even though those guys were 'good'. It is alright for people to express disdain for what they don't like, as in the case of people trying to blame religion for evil. Many 'good' people walk the face of the earth today who don't need religion to do bad things if presented with the opportunity. If Professor Weinberg had critically thought about this, perhaps he would have had something else to say that would have made common sense.

No. For good people to do evil things does not take religion. The Professor is clearly wrong.

@ 4get_me
Those people in business that caused all that havoc were not good. They were operating under an amoral system and exploted it for personal gain. Nothing in their behaviour could be described as good. They are morally reprehensible. People that are following one of the 3 great monotheistic religions are absolutely convinced about the eternal truth of their position. There is no place to question the fundaments of their religion. Now, within that context of absolute moral values that cannot be questioned people that are generally good, like a lot of these terrorists, that are loving and caring members of their society, do things that, if not for their religious justification, they would never do. That's what is mean by that statement.
I am never going to claim that the vast majority of religious people would ever do such a thing, certainly not. The religious claims to absolute truth though are conductive for such reprehensible behaviour.

Do you honestly believe that the perpetrators of 9-11 would ever have commited their monstrous barbarities if it weren't for their religious conviction that they were doing God's work? I don't think so.
It takes religion or another closed belief system (such as orthodox marxism) to make generally good people do evil things. In an open, civil and egalitarian society, such things do not happen.

nferyn, I still maintain that Weinberg's statement, though clever, is wrong. What you have just stated about those who perpetrated the 9-11 incident applies to the first part of his axiom, viz 'With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.' I've no problem with that so far. However, it does not follow that good people need religion to do bad things. It is all too easy to fall for that excuse that just because the guys at Enron staged a fraud they were not good initially. I think that's the problem with our learned Professor. He wants people to believe that every case of 'good' people doing 'bad' is founded on religion as the necessary factor - and that's the second part of his axiom. Dead wrong. So, let me guess: if there were no religion, 'good' people would never do bad? In some cases one calls people 'good' until they do something 'bad' - and to argue that those people were not 'good' at the onset does not sound intelligent. Weinberg got it all mixed up and I'm not one to fall for that.

4gt_m.

4get_me,

You made me think over Weinberg's quote again. You are right that Religion is not the necessary factor for good people to do evil things. Other motives can also make good people do evil things.
That does not mean that religion is not one of the most potent motivators for good people to do evil things. One of the main characteristics of the monotheistic revelatory religions is the reliance on faith, i.e. belief based on prior assumptions of truth who are closed from rational and scientific scrutiny.
All people undergo the psychological process of dealing with cognitive dissonance. It is a natural human trait to either discard or encapsulate contradictory information instead of changing already held prior conceptions. It takes a conscient effort to take a critical and skeptic stand, as it does not come naturally to humans.
Religious thought, by it's reliance on faith, feeds the natural human tendency of dismissing contradictory information. Religion, being one of the main elements that can give people's life purpose, is very resilient to contradictory information, even if the evidence is radically stacked against those [i]truths [/i]of religion.

Now concerning those people at Enron and in similar cases, you cannot possibly make the case that they were good. Unless of course that they, by being in support of the Christian Right in the US, are good by definition. Anyway, I enjoy your thoughtful contributions and would be very surprised if you held such primitive beliefs.

nferyn,
This is one good turn again that you've surprised me as far as finding common grounds for rational discussion goes. I agree with some of the things you've pointed out about the excesses of religious beliefs and convictions used by some people to cause havoc. However, I'm not of a skeptic persuasion and I don't necessarily think that the standard approach to most problems should follow that trend (I hope I understand your context). As far as 'dismissing contradictory information' is concerned, that resilience is shared as well by skeptism. If one presents an event that cannot be explained by the laws of natural science in the understanding of the physical world, skeptism at best hesitates to accept such a claim; or, at worst discards it as untenable under scientific scrutiny. I've been taught a lot of things about Christianity that just were not in the Book; but then, critical thought led me to change my prior conceptions - of course, only after I had clear text proof.

The Christian Right in the US is something 'greek' to me - but for your mentioning it, I probably would not have heard about it. However, glad that we could share ideas even if somewhat of contrasting approaches.

4gt_m.

4get_me,
Whether or not you consider skeptics to be dismissing contradictory information, you are not enirely correct in your view. Skeptics do not make claims of origins of certain phenomena unless there is sufficient positive evidence for their source. In case of unexplainable phenomena, the answer is usually along the lines of I don't know or I need more information. Very different from positive claims about the source of phenomena without evidence.
I don't really understand this sentence:

4get_me:

I've been taught a lot of things about Christianity that just were not in the Book; but then, critical thought led me to change my prior conceptions - of course, only after I had clear text proof.

Can you explain?

@ Ajisafe
The best way to convince someone that you're peaceful is not by launching into acrid missives. By so doing, did you just prove that your religion is indeed voilent? While it is legitimate for anyone to say whatever they feel, the topic is quite legitimate as well; and it would make a lot of sense to pass your comments as sanely as possible and devoid of caustic sentiments. You have failed to show that Islam is nonviolent.


@ choice.A,
the same answer is applicable to you. You don't seem to understand: "We don't need to convince people like you!" Yours is yours and mine is mine! If you don't poke your nose in my affair as a Muslim I have no cause to attack you. Has any right-minded Christian or Jew thought about my assertion that you people are the REAL TERRORIST! with weapons of mass destruction (that which you fight so hard to deny the Muslims)? Which set of people ever used an atomic bomb on another nation? Which people have the most lethal weapons, to wit? And you will be quick to call the Muslims "terrorists." How idiotic can you all look? That's my argument! I might have sounded caustic to you, yes. I'm troubled by your hypocrisy: call a spade a spade. Jews and Christians are the TERRORISTS, not the Muslims. I am only human! It's not in my dictionary to live in false pretense. I tell it the way it is and damn the consequence -- I don't care if you don't like my approach -- all I know is I am far from being called a sycophant like other "Muslims" who want you to regard them as "non-violent." If you fight me I'll fight you. Understood? Please, all of you: THE MUSLIMS OWE NOTHING TO YOU TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ISLAM IS A PEACEFUL RELIGION! IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT, TOO BAD! I, Ajisafe, is just a no-nonsense Muslim! It's okay if other Muslims can't fight the Kufars, I just don't want them to stop me from attacking back when you, the kufars, attack Islam and our Prophet!

Ajisafe:

,,,It's not in my dictionary to live in false pretense. ,,, all I know is I am far from being called a sycophant like other "Muslims" who want you to regard them as "non-violent."

Where in this thread have I poked my nose in your affairs or called Moslems the REAL TERRORISTS? I suspected at first that you're neither intelliegent nor peaceful: I only wanted to confirm it from you, and you proved my point. It doesn't matter to me however you address me; but one thing is for sure - if I never knew anything about Islam and had to make my guess about it from people like you, then it is conspicuous that Islam is indeed violent in nature.

You are a big unbelieving idiot! Answer me! Who is the real terrorist? The Jews and Christians with weapons of mass destruction or the pebble-throwing Muslims?

[quot e author=Ajisafe link=topic=6961.msg211226#msg211226 date=1140112121]

And we definitely don't need to convince people like you that Islam is a religion of peace.
[quote][/quote]

Lol, everytime u come on a thread, if insults are not passed then you haven't made a post. Now you talk about convincing people about Islam been a religion of peace, sheesh i doubt if anyone disputes that notion but with followers like you obviously, the peaceful nature of the religion has not been inculcated into you. So till the peacefullness u associate with your religion becomes eminent through your posts on NL, then you'll have the priviledge of our attention.

But right now, u are far from that peaceful nature u talk about.

Ps:Since you are synonymous with insults , kindly do not use words like uglyH, kufars or idiot, at this moment in time those words are stale. Pls be more creative and spice up your reply. Thanks in advance

Why are you afraid? Remember when you called me "terrorist"? No smoke without fire.

prettyH, that sounds assuaging, I suppose,
I'm a very peaceful person, but I dislike injustices. The Western Christian world, because of their military power, think they can do whatever they want. They kill us, en masse, and still have the guts to call us "terrorists"! And you African "follow-follow" Christians have joined these waggons. That's the source of my anger! Why don't you stay christian and I stay Muslim and we don't bother each other? When we get to the Great Beyond Allah will judge between us.

Ajisafe,

I don't regret anything i've called you. IMO, you remain a terrorist though a faceless one. If we all threw around words like you do, can you just imagine the level we'd have stooped to?

Allah will judge between us but, before that time, if you fight me I'll fight you. uglyH, you and your folks are the BIG TERRORISTS!

You don't know jack. Whats my bizwax with Allah? Fighting, u really don't understand what that word means? And for your information, i am above that level.

What is your level? You this bloody female militant!

My level is one unbeknown to you and can never be. Call me a militant, fine, thats your opinion. I know who i am and proud of it. I have passed my message across without having had to stoop down to your level. If thats what makes me militant, then so be it.

uglyH is a Christian militant, terrorist, extremist, and fundamentalist! Haba, uglyH!

Ajisafe:

uglyH is a Christian militant, terrorist, extremist, and fundamentalist! Haba, uglyH!

Lol, gosh he's getting touchy and i'm liking it. I'm a Christain and i'm happy to be one. Whatever you call me , honestly i don't care. Why? Because its you no one ever takes you seriously if you've not noticed. I have made my point clear. Go back and learn what it means to be a muslim and then come back and talk, probably then people will stop antagonising you.

Talk to you later. I've got to go now, uglyH.

No prob. Take kare terrorist.

prettyH,

As the PM's don't work anymore, I'll use this channel to communicate. I haven't sent you the mp3's yet because I borrowed out my CD and haven't received it back yet. I'll send them to you the moment I have my Cd back

cya

Hey, lets maintain some decorum here. This post is not meant to curse and abuse ourselves. Its for us to discuss issues in a rather objective manner as much as possible. I am a muslim and I believe that the violence that trail the cartoon issue is uncalled for. Very reactionary. It does not follow the sunnah (ways of life) of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Once the prophet was physically assaulte in Taif (a place in Saudi Arabia), He prayed to Allah to preserve the coming generations of the community to accept Isalm, even when he could have dealt with them. the prayer was answered.

@PrettyH
I beg u in the name of God. U are beautiful, good looking, precious handiwork of God. Kindly forgive and pardon Ajisafe in all that he had said to u. I apologize on his behalf.PPPPPPPllllllleeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaassssssssseeeeeee.

@Ajisafe
I am utterly disappointed and felt extremely disturbed about your responses on this post. U have not shown the adab (ethiquette) of argument. Remember, Allah says 'id u , ila sabili, robika bil hiqma, wa mau zatil hasana, wa jadilihum, bi lati hiya hasan'. And call into the way of your Lord, with wisdom and beautiful preachings. And argue in the best of manner.
Kindly adjust and lets talk better on the new exclusive muslim thread that Seun has just created 4 us.
unfortunately, I will have love to make some comments on the above thread but due to this singular incident, I will be holding my views 4 now, cheers all.

Thanks

@nferyn

@Olat,

Thanks. But its cool, really. I wasn't offended. I'm used to it.

I believe, actually I hope, Islam can be a peaceful religion, but the fact many of its followers can be so violent based mostly on the Koran, should hopefully make more people question the varacity and validity of Islam's holy book and Allah's knowledge.

I am utterly disappointed and felt extremely disturbed about your responses on this post. U have not shown the adab (ethiquette) of argument. Remember, Allah says 'id u , ila sabili, robika bil hiqma, wa mau zatil hasana, wa jadilihum, bi lati hiya hasan'. And call into the way of your Lord, with wisdom and beautiful preachings. And argue in the best of manner.
Kindly adjust and lets talk better on the new exclusive muslim thread that Seun has just created 4 us.
unfortunately, I will have love to make some comments on the above thread but due to this singular incident, I will be holding my views 4 now, cheers all.
Posted 

I really don't have the time to keep on repeating myself to those ignorant ones who want to show off and appease the kufars.

It is so easy for munafikins like you to pick and choose what they like to hear in the Qur'an just like the kufars do with their corrupt Injil (Bible). So, staements like these The Western Christian world, because of their military power, think they can do whatever they want. They kill us, en masse, and still have the guts to call us "terrorists"! And you African "follow-follow" Christians have joined these waggons. That's the source of my anger! Why don't you stay christian and I stay Muslim and we don't bother each other? When we get to the Great Beyond Allah will judge between us make no sense to you at all, kufar lover?

And do you cherish statements like these  I believe, actually I hope, Islam can be a peaceful religion, but the fact many of its followers can be so violent based mostly on the Koran, should hopefully make more people question the varacity and validity of Islam's holy book and Allah's knowledge coming from a senseless kufar?

I'm disappointed in you and other munafikins who call themselves "Muslim/Muslima!" If you're so ashamed of your religion that you can not confront those who have hated, maligned, and oppressed you and your religion for eons you're not qualified to be called staunch Muslims. You can get out now! Go join the kufars in their confused heads. In fact, I don't think you will succeed even as a kufar because if there's only one thing for which I credit the kufars, it's their uprightness. The kufars know they're wrong, but they amaze me with their being staunch in error. You the so-called "Muslims" who are supposedly following the right path and as the Qur'an puts it "The Best of Mankind" are dilly-dallying for nothing. You've only incurred the wrath of Allah for trying to stop me in my being hard on the kufars. Allah will chastise you all.

Again, frightened ones, if you don't want Allah to give you the same punishment that has been reserved for the kufars, leave me alone! Let me confront them alone! How else will I make myself clear to you punks?

@nferyn
Hello. I'm sorry that my reply to your thread came this late - I had a few exams to sit and did not mean to be rude by disappearing on you. Anyhow, I'll quickly make this reference:
_________________________________________________________________

Quote from: 4get_me on February 18, 2006, 01:38 AM
I've been taught a lot of things about Christianity that just were not in the Book; but then, critical thought led me to
change my prior conceptions - of course, only after I had clear text proof.

Can you explain?
_________________________________________________________________

I was responding to your earlier post to the effect that Christians are not as gullible as many people suppose (if that's what you meant):

"All people undergo the psychological process of dealing with cognitive dissonance. It is a natural human trait to either
discard or encapsulate contradictory information instead of changing already held prior conceptions"

Indeed, if we hold prior conceptions, they are immediately discarded as soon as the truth we did not know comes to light. Take for instance, before Martin Luther in the 16th century, many Christians believed that people had to rigorously work their way upwards to God; but when the scales fell and 'justification by faith' alone came to light, many people abandoned the servile ideas of penance and purgatory. This did not mean that a new Bible was written; that truth had been in the Bible all along until Martin Luther fearlessly and openly preached it.

I would not have needed to go into all this, but just so it would not appear that the delay in responding to your post be interpreted as rudeness