Is Islam a peaceful or violent religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesus_Is_God_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus_Is_God said:
Is Islam an inherently peaceful or violent religion (I’m not talking about all individual Muslims, I’m talking about Islam itself), and does it threaten Judeo-Christian/western civilization? Are the violent verses in the Qur’an and the Hadith truly violent, or just taken out of their historical context? What is your view on Islam as a whole?
Click to expand...
I think Islam is “inherently” a peaceful religion… Christians and Jews have flourished in Muslim societies such as Muslim Spain in Cordova and Andalusia. Western civilization owes a certain debt to the Muslim universities and inventions brought from China and India in the middle ages.

The verses in the Qur’an that appear to endorse violence such as Jihad are for specific historical circumstances the early Muslims faced when they were attacked by pagan forces from Mecca.
 
arthra said:
I think Islam is “inherently” a peaceful religion… Christians and Jews have flourished in Muslim societies such as Muslim Spain in Cordova and Andalusia. Western civilization owes a certain debt to the Muslim universities and inventions brought from China and India in the middle ages.

The verses in the Qur’an that appear to endorse violence such as Jihad are for specific historical circumstances the early Muslims faced when they were attacked by pagan forces from Mecca.
Click to expand...
Define flourish. Did the population of Christians under Islamic rule in Spain increase? Were they allowed to spread their religion? How was it in the first place that Spain came into Islamic control?

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. Surah 9:29

I see nothing here which cannot apply to Christians (Just the opposite since it is Christians who were forced to pay the Jizya). Also the idea of Islamic Spain being a beacon of tolerance and guidance to the rest of Europe was largely a myth.
 
arthra said:
I think Islam is “inherently” a peaceful religion… Christians and Jews have flourished in Muslim societies such as Muslim Spain in Cordova and Andalusia. Western civilization owes a certain debt to the Muslim universities and inventions brought from China and India in the middle ages.

The verses in the Qur’an that appear to endorse violence such as Jihad are for specific historical circumstances the early Muslims faced when they were attacked by pagan forces from Mecca.
Click to expand...
Most religions are inherently good; they generally teaches people to do good. Seen from that angle, they are good, not bad. Islam is no different.

But if one has to answer candidly to the question of the thread, Islam, perhaps more than others would have room for violence when necessary, especially as violence is included in its teaching.

Most Muslims that I have heard would disagree with you on Jihad. It can be an open ended exhortation and thus teaching to fight - within and without. Muslims just need to justify the situation to declare that to happen.

What makes Islam stand out from the other religions is that Jihad is a doctrine. Close example in inter-religion comparison was the declaration by the Pope for a holy war. While outwardly they can be similar, Jihad is a doctrine while the Pope is acting as a head of a religion.

Now when a teaching is explicitly spelt out in a doctrine, it opens an enormous implication for action, as what we can see along the centuries in Islam.

There is no escaping the label of violence. A good Muslim apologist would be defending why Islam is as such, for example Jihad.
 
When you get down to “brass tacks”, the two religions are starkly different when you consider the personification of each.

It’s very difficult to get around the crucifixion of Christ and it’s profound meaning for Christians.
(I will go to my death for your salvation rather than lift a finger in coercion…so that you are free to return my love).

That is a uniquely free and radical faith that is found nowhere else, and whatever good points Mohammed has (I am no expert) he is nothing like the Christ.
 
I think it leans more closely to being peaceful, but it’s certainly not inherently peaceful. Based on my independent study, I know that the Shariah prescribes the death penalty for adultery, the cutting off of a thief’s hand and flogging a fornicator with one hundred stripes. Very severe punishments indeed. Some scholars even say that apostasy carries the death penalty, but I believe that that’s contrary to the Qur’an. I was recently reading through Surah an-Nisa and I found a verse that says that Muhammad was only sent as a reminder– not as a compeller (i.e. he’s only responsible for delivering the message of Islam, as opposed to being someone who forces someone to believe).

I fully recognize that it’s not just a bunch of lunatics who say that apostasy deserves death-- reputable scholars say it, too. I have read it in ‘Reliance of the Traveler’, which is a handbook of the Shafi’i school of thought. Those who say apostasy deserves death are scripturally illiterate, though. I’d bet my very soul on it. I’ve seen it in the Qur’an and have received confirmation [from my prayers] that Muhammad was just a warner; he was not sent to force people to stay in the fold of Islam under threat of death. There is no compulsion in religion and that is as true today as it has always been, despite what many muslims claim.

If opposing the death penalty for apostasy takes me outside the field of Orthodox Islam, so be it. I’m not afraid.
 
drac16 said:
I think it leans more closely to being peaceful, but it’s certainly not inherently peaceful. Based on my independent study, I know that the Shariah prescribes the death penalty for adultery, the cutting off of a thief’s hand and flogging a fornicator with one hundred stripes. Very severe punishments indeed. Some scholars even say that apostasy carries the death penalty, but I believe that that’s contrary to the Qur’an. I was recently reading through Surah an-Nisa and I found a verse that says that Muhammad was only sent as a reminder– not as a compeller (i.e. he’s only responsible for delivering the message of Islam, as opposed to being someone who forces someone to believe).

I fully recognize that it’s not just a bunch of lunatics who say that apostasy deserves death-- reputable scholars say it, too. I have read it in ‘Reliance of the Traveler’, which is a handbook of the Shafi’i school of thought. Those who say apostasy deserves death are scripturally illiterate, though. I’d bet my very soul on it. I’ve seen it in the Qur’an and have received confirmation [from my prayers] that Muhammad was just a warner; he was not sent to force people to stay in the fold of Islam under threat of death. There is no compulsion in religion and that is as true today as it has always been, despite what many muslims claim.

If opposing the death penalty for apostasy takes me outside the field of Orthodox Islam, so be it. I’m not afraid.
Click to expand...
I think the fact that if it is established by orthodox Islam that apostates need to receive the death penalty, then it can be safely said Islam leans closer to being violent rather than peaceful.
 
Perhaps the proper answer to the question is that Islam can be peaceful when it needs to be to survive but violent when it needs to be to conquer.

So it can point to its “peacefulness” when accused of being violent, but still be deniably violent because ONLY the jihadists – a small and extreme segment of Islam – are the violent ones.

breitbart.com/london/2016/12/21/fifteen-per-cent-of-teachers-quit-migrant-crisis-malmo-in-just-six-months/

All these Swedish teachers and professionals are Islamophobes and xenophobes for leaving Malmö, I suppose.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Perhaps the proper answer to the question is that Islam can be peaceful when it needs to be to survive but violent when it needs to be to conquer.

So it can point to its “peacefulness” when accused of being violent, but still be deniably violent because ONLY the jihadists – a small and extreme segment of Islam – are the violent ones.
Click to expand...
There is no “it.”

There are people.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
There is no “it.”

There are people.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Perhaps.

However, when people give themselves over to an ideology, the ideology has power over people. In this case, as well as others, a particular ideology is controlling people to some extent or other. That ideology can and ought to be identified and described for what it is, otherwise it simply hides behind “people” as if it doesn’t exist. And the people who have given themselves over to the ideology hide behind “people” like chameleons taking on the characteristics of what surrounds them. Very convenient for chameleons and for people who espouse ideologies, especially demented ideologies that ought to be exposed for what they are (and the people who espouse them.)
 
Peter_Plato said:
And the genetic fallacy is your argument? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Why don’t you explain for us all why we should listen to a far right-winger for insight into the OP? Is it because a video can say things that you can’t?
Islam is no more violent than Christianity. Most of the mass shootings in this country over the past decade have been committed by…people who identify with Christianity.
Labeling Islam as violent is just an excuse to scapegoat a people and continue our endless wars.
 
I’m just going to say one thing about this and leave it at that.

By their works, ye shall know them.
 
Jesus_Is_God said:
I think the fact that if it is established by orthodox Islam that apostates need to receive the death penalty, then it can be safely said Islam leans closer to being violent rather than peaceful.
Click to expand...
And if Thomas Aquinas, praised by Leo XIII as the intellectual foundation of sound Catholic theology, says that heretics should be executed, does that make Catholicism violent?

Historically, orthodox Sunni Islam and orthodox [Catholic] Christianity are both violent, in the sense that both religions for centuries used the threat of deadly force to maintain cultural and political power.

What that should mean for a modern believer in either of these traditions is not a question that can be answered by an outsider. As someone seeking admission to the Catholic Church, I have come to the conclusion (with great struggle and difficulty) that the violent legacy of Catholicism does not mean that Catholicism is false. (And yes,other Christian traditions are violent too, with the one I’ve belonged to since 1998, Anglicanism, being one of the worst offenders historically.) Since I am not remotely considering conversion to Islam, I am not even bothering to ask the question about Islam.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
And if Thomas Aquinas, praised by Leo XIII as the intellectual foundation of sound Catholic theology, says that heretics should be executed, does that make Catholicism violent?

Historically, orthodox Sunni Islam and orthodox [Catholic] Christianity are both violent, in the sense that both religions for centuries used the threat of deadly force to maintain cultural and political power.

What that should mean for a modern believer in either of these traditions is not a question that can be answered by an outsider. As someone seeking admission to the Catholic Church, I have come to the conclusion (with great struggle and difficulty) that the violent legacy of Catholicism does not mean that Catholicism is false. (And yes,other Christian traditions are violent too, with the one I’ve belonged to since 1998, Anglicanism, being one of the worst offenders historically.) Since I am not remotely considering conversion to Islam, I am not even bothering to ask the question about Islam.

Edwin
Click to expand...
One area I see frequently dodged is the simple fact that the area of the world in which Islam exists, has been a place of war. If one looked at the European wars, would one come to the same conclusion?
 
Son_of_Niall said:
Why don’t you explain for us all why we should listen to a far right-winger for insight into the OP?
Click to expand...
Could you explain why we shouldn’t “listen” merely because you apply the label “right-winger” for the sole reason of disparaging what is said?

Still the genetic fallacy. Merely rephrasing it as a question does not make it less so.
Son_of_Niall said:
Is it because a video can say things that you can’t?
Click to expand...
Nope, it is because there are forum rules which limit what can be said against another religion
Son_of_Niall said:
Islam is no more violent than Christianity. Most of the mass shootings in this country over the past decade have been committed by…people who identify with Christianity.
Click to expand...
Why limit the analysis to the last decade, to this country and to mass shootings? Why not look across the globe at all senseless acts of violence by whatever means utilized? Your conclusion, as dubious as it is even with your restrictions applied is utterly decimated when all that violence is considered.
Son_of_Niall said:
Labeling Islam as violent is just an excuse to scapegoat a people and continue our endless wars.
Click to expand...
I suppose adherents actually being violent is also to be excused?
 
Son_of_Niall said:
Why don’t you explain for us all why we should listen to a far right-winger for insight into the OP? Is it because a video can say things that you can’t?
Click to expand...
More importantly, can you explain why the simple fact that 548 offensive battles were fought by Islam in the name of jihad against Christian peoples as opposed to about 16 defensive battles fought by Christians as part of the crusades shouldn’t be considered as evidence to answer the thread question?

Your claim is that the evidence ought to be entirely dismissed without so much as addressing the factual claim merely because it is a “far right winger” offering the evidence. Again, how is that an argument?

With regards to right-wingers and left-wingers, it has been my experience that right-wingers, even those on the far right, are far more likely to use evidence and sound reasoning to present their case than left-wingers. Left-wingers tend to use group-think, identity politics, ad hominem arguments (such as the one you used), abusive epithets and ambiguous wording to silence or derail all discussion.

Now you can either reinforce that observation or begin to disabuse me of it, depending upon how you respond to this post.
 
Peter_Plato said:
More importantly, can you explain why the simple fact that 548 offensive battles were fought by Islam in the name of jihad against Christian peoples as opposed to about 16 defensive battles fought by Christians as part of the crusades shouldn’t be considered as evidence to answer the thread question?
Click to expand...
The last two World Wars were between people who adhered to Christianity. As were the Napoleonic wars, the various wars England fought (too numerous to count) as well as America between Mexico, Native Americans…I could go on for an hour.
The point being, Christian nations are just if not more violent.
 
Peter_Plato said:
More importantly, can you explain why the simple fact that 548 offensive battles were fought by Islam in the name of jihad against Christian peoples as opposed to about 16 defensive battles fought by Christians as part of the crusades shouldn’t be considered as evidence to answer the thread question?

Your claim is that the evidence ought to be entirely dismissed without so much as addressing the factual claim merely because it is a “far right winger” offering the evidence. Again, how is that an argument?

With regards to right-wingers and left-wingers, it has been my experience that right-wingers, even those on the far right, are far more likely to use evidence and sound reasoning to present their case than left-wingers. Left-wingers tend to use group-think, identity politics, ad hominem arguments (such as the one you used), abusive epithets and ambiguous wording to silence or derail all discussion.

Now you can either reinforce that observation or begin to disabuse me of it, depending upon how you respond to this post.
Click to expand...
I am not a right winger in fact I lean towards more liberal than conservative but I noticed that liberals are more likely to rely on emotional arguments than rational arguments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top