But the point is that Islam is still violent, it still preaches violence, making it inspire different people in different ways. Christianity does the same, but the New Testament significanly altered it's message - the Koran and Islam do not allow for any changes in what was written - because it allegedly came from God...through Mohammed. Essentially - it could be the ramblings of a madman back around 670 AD - or it could be nonsense, or maybe it was inspired by Aliens pretending to be angels, or maybe from God - no one knows..... However, it's message is really poorly constructed, it's meanings are convoluted, and it is easy to manipulate the uneducated because of that. DD
You 'relevant' question is 'why does this one data point (and others) not fit?'. To which my response would be 'does it matter?' You could pick any answer you want (ex. his beliefs are not the norm; it's correlation not causation; etc...), I don't care. I can certainly show you people who converted to Islam and then started partaking in terrorism/violence. Would that be useful to you?
I think you're confused on the point I was making. One side is claiming Islam is a religion of violence, and I am giving a counter-example to that claim. That is not the same thing as me claiming Islam is a religion of peace. And, yes, it absolutely matters that a person who rededicates himself to a religion purported to be one of violence actually becomes a more peaceful, gentle person.
So you are saying Islam is not a 'religion of violence' because not all Muslims are violent? who is arguing all Muslims are violent?
Its not simply that Hakeem is an example of a non-violent Muslim. If that was the case, there could of course be many other factors at play that keep him from being violent outside of his religion. But in this case, Hakeem's transformation specifically coincided with him turning to Islam. It was something about his religion that apparently changed him. That's not me just making a guess. That's what he said. And that's what his teammates and coaches said. And, again, that's not to say that Islam is a religion of peace as Hakeem no doubt considers it. As pointed out by DaDakota, Islamic texts are evidently contradictory in their message. Taken verbatim, there probably is no coherent message of violence or peace. One has to pick and choose and interpret (or have it picked, chosen, and interpreted for them). Islam is, thus, a violent religion for some practitioners, and it is a peaceful religion for others. As an outsider, how can I claim it is categorically a violent religion? Would I not then be delegitimizing the peaceful Islam many respectable Muslims identify with?
But nobody is arguing that there are no peaceful Muslims. Everyone knows a peaceful Muslim. You are saying, because peaceful Muslims exist that Islam must not be a 'religion of violence'. That can be true if you wish. 'Religion of violence' is just some expression that can be interpreted a million different ways. The topic of the thread is 'Is Islam the most violent religion', so whatever Hakeem's story is doesn't matter to the thread topic as it is just one data point.
I expressly said this is not what I'm saying: "Its not simply that Hakeem is an example of a non-violent Muslim. If that was the case, there could of course be many other factors at play that keep him from being violent outside of his religion." Hakeem's peacefulness was a consequence of his religion, and yet you want to argue that his religion is the most violent religion in the world. Something doesn't make sense there. What I'm suggesting to you is that Islam takes many forms -- and his particular brand of Islam is not violent, quite the opposite.
The way this post is structured. You make it sound like there are 1.5 billion terrorists and 1 million peaceful Muslims. Everyone knows a Muslim terrorist too. I know 3 personally. One of them keeps talking about how some day he wants to be the one to blow up the Astrodome. He is in construction, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with it.
And I am saying you are arguing with nobody on this as everyone knows a peaceful Muslim. Also, You have no idea what caused Hakeem to become more peaceful. that's correlation not causation. Could of been him getting older for all you know. That mellows most people out. Or it could of been religion. who knows.
Good to know we're in agreement, then. I don't have any idea, despite what he himself, his teammates, and his coaches and others around the team said about it? If you say so.
What would Hakeem think if his teammate said 'nope the reason your more peaceful is age and not your religion.' I think Hakeem would be slightly offended.
They were not forced to point out why he became more peaceful. If they didn't want to offend, they could have just left it as he became a more mature person. But too many people at the time and in interviews years later talked about how his renewed commitment to his religion changed him. Is there any particular reason you doubt that his religion brought about the positive change in his life?
Money donated by Hakeem to a mosque also frequented by some members of this forum unfortunately ended up in terrorist organizations. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/sports/basketball/10olajuwon.html?_r=0 Terror Fronts Got Money From Olajuwon's Mosque WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (AP) - A mosque established and financed by the former Houston Rockets star Hakeem Olajuwon gave more than $80,000 to charities that the government later determined to be fronts for the terror groups Al Qaeda and Hamas, according to financial records obtained by The Associated Press. Olajuwon told The A.P. he had not known of any links to terrorism when the donations were made, before the government's crackdown on the groups, and would not have given the money if he had known. "There is no way you can go back in time," Olajuwon said in a telephone interview from Jordan, where he is studying Arabic. "After the fact, now they have the list of organizations that are banned by the government." A Treasury Department spokeswoman, Molly Millerwise, declined to discuss Olajuwon's contributions but said, "In many cases donors are being unwittingly misled by the charities." Federal law enforcement officials said they were not investigating Olajuwon, a 7-foot center born in Nigeria who played 17 seasons for the Houston Rockets before retiring in 2002. The Olajuwon-founded Islamic Da'Wah Center gave more than $60,000 in 2000 and $20,000 in 2002 to the Islamic African Relief Agency, the center's tax records show. The government shut down the relief agency in October, saying it gave money to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Olajuwon participated in a 1999 celebrity bowling tournament for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which the United States government shut down in 2001, accusing it of sending money to Hamas. The Islamic Da'Wah Center gave more than $2,000 to the Holy Land Foundation in 2000, according to its tax returns.
yes. I am not religious, so I don't see how someone's view of the metaphysical could possibly affect their moral compass. is it the threats? You thought something was morally right, but now that your being told you could be damned eternally for doing said something you don't do it anymore? This is way off topic and I probably won;t respond further to it.
Interesting. If religion doesn't affect one's moral compass, then it also can't be said to make one violent. Anyways, I disagree. I think religion can have a profound effect, good or bad, on someone's values and how they treat others.
Oh it cant make someone peaceful and violent. religion is just a means to an end. A person wants to beat his wife and some belief system tells him its okay so he pretends he believes it so he doesn't feel guilty. Islam can definitely fall in this category. you want to get ride of everyone who doesn't think like you and certain forms of Islam certainly promote that.
Then steering this back to the thread topic, what do you think it means to say a religion is "violent"? I understood this to mean its more likely to make somone who follows it violent. But I guess you interpret it differently? Edit: Nevermind. I think I see where you're coming from. A religion accommodates or restricts a person's naturally violent tendencies. So someone who doesn't already have those feelings won't be stirred to be a violent person by religion.
