False, most of them realize it, but most of them do not control their circumstances. It is a huge part of Islamic and Arabic literature which is buried for political reasons. Science and education was massive in creating the Islamic empire and this is recognized and known by all Muslims. Other than politics, try telling a religious extremist cleric "oh, I have a degree, the internet and an iphone, you are useless now but thank you for your help". They don't take well to losing the only industry in which they are employable.
Oh you were serious? Since Islam is not an entity, it cannot say anything. The author of the Quran is God, and the Quran doesn't say Islam is THE religion of peace. Frankly I don't think it even mentions this any more than other religious scriptures. Muslims say Islam is the religion of peace. I don't think Muslims are especially peaceful or violent. I don't think the Quran is especially peaceful or violent. I don't think Islamic history has been especially peaceful or violent. What Muslims say or do does not equate to what "Islam" says or does. For example, the Quran literally says there is "no compulsion in religion" while some Muslims believe it is appropriate to spread Islam through state wars and invasions. If Islam has a position, then it must be equated to the statements of the Quran since it is the only Islamic text which they consider divine. Hadith, interpretation, etc the rest is all acknowledged as man-made, therefore you can attribute those things to the various authors and actors. Muslims know full well it is not the religion of peace as it is being framed by you or the media. Moreso than your example, there have been wars and assassinations and sectarian battles in the past which could not be characterized as the PEACE you're describing. They mean it in the same way politicians do when they say they have to go to war or invade a country in order to achieve peace. So those Muslims also think that if the whole world was governed by Sharia, then there would be peace. They ignore the fact that if any single set of ideals governed the world, this removes people's Quranically-guaranteed liberty to believe what they want to believe. This is of course even more ludicrous because inherent in the Quran is the fact that humans are incapable of enforcing God's law because God's law has to be judged with compelete accuracy and transparency of intent - something which only He posseses - as well as actions. Therefore logically, any attempt to enforce this law will fail. For example, if you deny intent to murder, God can know if you meant to murder, while humans can only try to guess if you meant to do it based on evidence (confession being the only exception in God's rule). This is why there is supposed to be a judgement day, and this is why I don't understand why Muslims believe judgement day is necessary if they think they can accurately enforce the law now. So I assume what your question really is: Why do Muslims claim that Islam is the religion of peace yet after hearing a manipulable sermon from a conservative Muslim about the so-called religion of peace they tend to get riled up? Simply because sermons can be about anything at all. Anothe factor is that people get more riled up in groups. Yet another factor is that Friday prayer is when people exchange information and the exchange is especially high in countries where alternate forms of communication is limited or restricted. So around Eid (which is like New Year for Muslims), the mosque is more joyous. For funerals, mosques are more sad. When Mubarak cracked down on Egyptians, mosques were more furious. Everything is multiplied based on the sermon and obviously the circumstances. This places great responsibility on the person delivering the sermon as he has the power to calm people down or rile them up. Of course, sometimes things are so bad, people just wait for him to finish to go out and make some noise while there is strength in numbers. That's the short answer.
I know there are a large portion of the Islamic population that understand this, but I am not sure that is the majority. The governments are certainly not helping in this regard.
Not really, but thanks. Anyway - the question is simply why, in a religion that is described by its followers as "the religion of peace", after joint prayers, the mood in many countries seems to be angry, rather than peaceful. What do the preachers preach? It doesn't seem like they are preaching peace. It rather seems like they rile people up. But is it still a religion of peace, then? There are many things I don't like about the Catholic church, but having been raised Catholic, I have attended a lot of masses, and while the priests would sometimes not make a whole lot of sense, the general message was always about tolerance and forgiveness. I have never heard a priest preach against another religion or government or country, not once. If it was the same in Muslim countries, shouldn't people come out of their Friday prayers less inclined to be violent?
While it is lower in Muslim-dominated countries, I think the difference is easily attributable to the exponentially more powerful efforts to suppress it in those countries. In short, yes fewer Muslims realize it, and that's the outcome of their circumstances. It is fairly common to see this happening on a lesser scale in even the most developed countries. It is also fairly common to not see this happening as much in Muslim-dominated countries with better circumstances. In some countries, they tell them science and education is suspect way before the students have the cognitive ability to scrutinize this claim. Of course they tell them that as a defense mechanism for when they later find conflicting ideas in science and religion, so the will side with religion.
Muslims who say Islam is a religion of peace, generally, are the moderate and "peaceful" Muslims, aren't they? I've never heard of a terrorist describing Islam as a religion of peace. The notion that one's values comes from their religion, to me, is often backward. I think, more usually, a person's religion or personal philosophy is shaped around the values they already have -- values that have evolved over their lifetime based on how they were raised and what their life experiences are. So, Islam can be a religion of peace or a religion of violence. Just like Christianity or Hinduism or whatever.
Do you think those rioting masses, the angry ones who set things on fire and scream "Death to America", are the same Muslims who insist that their's is a religion of peace? Maybe, I don't know.
I didn't know what you were referring to, so I googled it. Apparently they got a Sphinx back. I don't know much about it, to be honest.
They want peace, but at their terms. If it is not at their terms, there is no peace. But I am more interested in why they get riled up in the mosque.
Well the news doesn't report 99.9% of post friday prayer scenes, which largely consists of either people hurrying back to sleep or hurrying back home for lunch. It's very boring. But on your second point, that is simply not true. If it's a matter of one instance, you have already heard Terry Jones and Reverend Wright as popular cases. Plenty of those types on youtube as well. Middle Eastern news will not report the type of masses you went to, rather they deliver the most controversial ones to us. My only counter experience to that is American movies and tv shows which are at least somewhat more reflective of the more peaceful nature of priests and churches. On the other hand, you will not have seen Islamic tv shows and movies which similarly show the more boring reality of it all. The thing is people go in impressionable. They go in looking for answers and are more naive than usual. So in the UAE, my experience with mosques is same as your experience with churches. But I'm sure that my experience in mosque here would be very different than Terry Jones' church. It's not like these preachers don't have their own moods, and it's not like Priests/Imams read out all the text of their religion on those days. They select parts of their texts which suits what they want to communicate. So what happens you can say is based on what they choose. A priest could very easily pick out the most inciteful parts of the Bible, add his own tone and context, and get people riled up. A good Priest/Imam will look to calm people down as much as they can, that is of course unless they personally consider it just cause for protest. I remember that some churches even in America were riling people up hardcore after 9/11. Well, let's just say 9/11-like experiences also happen in the countries where friday prayers rile people up. So they get riled up. Anyways, as many people will tell you these are all modern versions of the intended purpose. Mosques had nothing to do with the physical structure and only appointed a caretaker, anyone could give a sermon. I believe it was MadMax who said early churches meant a gathering of people, it also had nothing to do with the structure or the hierarchal divisions in people. I agree with you that the current structure serves as a power magnifier, and my suggestion is that people go back to the true purpose of these gatherings: to keep communities tied together, rather than to gossip about each other from a pedestal.
I think that can be said about any group of people, any religion, and any kind of moment that is held together by a mob mentality. You might be able to draw a line in the sand and say this one is different than that one but I just don't see it. They all look like they have their own vision of what the world should be and they won't let anyone or anything stand in their way to get it.
i've not been to turkey or the middle east. i have seen impressive moorish architecture in spain and various artifacts in museums. the examples at the pergamon blew me away. i feel fortunate to have seen them. i wear a lot of hats and graphic design is one of them. there are patterns and designs so highly conceptual i think they have never been surpassed. their calligraphy is gorgeous as well. i am completely non-religious so maybe it's not fair, but i cannot fathom why accomplishments in science and the arts aren't trumpeted with more vigor. maybe they are and we don't hear about it.
