Is Islam a peaceful or violent religion?

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think so.
The very existence of this thread shows otherwise. This is the second time you have claimed this. I think you are simply using it as an out because your argument simply falls short. You have no ‘details’.

Well, I have 20 infraction points and two deleted posts on this thread which beg to differ with you.

 

[Contarini]

Apparently, you still have an issue distinguishing between the tenets or basic teachings of each religion and what the supposed practitioners of each end up doing when they construe or misconstrue those tenets.

Since you seem unwilling or unable to see the distinction, there is not much left to discuss.

In any case, there appear to be constraints on the forum which don’t permit discussing those critical differences in great detail, so there isn’t much point in continuing, in any case.

Apparently Peter has been banned, which I’m sorry for, but the argument he’s making is a common one.

It fails because there is no objective set of “basic teachings” that can be compared in abstraction from what the adherents of each religion have made of them.

Christians can argue that the “basic teachings” of Christianity are non-violent, but that’s a self-serving, special-pleading kind of argument.

Edwin

 

[arthra]

I thought it might be of interest here to compare the “Just War” concept with what is known in Arabic as “Jihad”…

First the “Just War” doctrine:

The strict conditions for* legitimate defense** by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: *

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

Now the concept of Jihad (struggle):

“*Religiously, jihad is the expending of utmost effort in upholding and defending justice,” said Sheikh Jaafar Idris, of the Saudi Arabian Embassy. Idris explained that he recognizes two kinds of jihad because there are two kinds of violations of justice: jihad with words against false beliefs, and jihad with the sword against acts of injustice. “The first is the basic and continuous jihad,” Idris said. “It was mentioned in the Qur’an very early in the history of Islam and at a time when Muslims were weak and even persecuted. God said to His Prophet, ‘Do not obey the kafireen (those who reject the truth) but wage jihad with it (the Qur’an) against them. [25:52]’” *

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_jihad.html

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Apparently Peter has been banned, which I’m sorry for, but the argument he’s making is a common one.

It fails because there is no objective set of “basic teachings” that can be compared in abstraction from what the adherents of each religion have made of them.

Christians can argue that the “basic teachings” of Christianity are non-violent, but that’s a self-serving, special-pleading kind of argument.

Edwin

I won’t repeat what he posted before it was deleted. Suffice to say I think he was given a LOT of rope over several sub-forums on this site.
Anyway, I think your last sentence is a double-edged sword. Pacifists and warriors can both claim self-serving arguments about basic teachings. I have seen gun-rights people use a verse in Gospels in which Jesus says sell your cloak and buy a sword.
God has always been very useful to ideologues.

 

[Contarini]

I won’t repeat what he posted before it was deleted. Suffice to say I think he was given a LOT of rope over several sub-forums on this site.
Anyway, I think your last sentence is a double-edged sword. Pacifists and warriors can both claim self-serving arguments about basic teachings. I have seen gun-rights people use a verse in Gospels in which Jesus says sell your cloak and buy a sword.
God has always been very useful to ideologues.

You misunderstand. I’m not criticizing people who make normative arguments about what their own religion ought to teach. We all do that and we should do that.

I’m criticizing people who claim that there is some objective set of “basic tenets” of each religion ascertainable by an outsider simply by empirical observation, and that this set of “basic tenets” just happens to include only the good stuff of their own religion, but plenty of bad stuff in the religion they want to attack.

Edwin

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I thought it might be of interest here to compare the “Just War” concept with what is known in Arabic as “Jihad”…

First the “Just War” doctrine:

The strict conditions for* legitimate defense*** by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

Now the concept of Jihad (struggle):

“Religiously, jihad is the expending of utmost effort in upholding and defending justice,” said Sheikh Jaafar Idris, of the Saudi Arabian Embassy. Idris explained that he recognizes two kinds of jihad because there are two kinds of violations of justice: jihad with words against false beliefs, and jihad with the sword against acts of injustice. “The first is the basic and continuous jihad,” Idris said. “It was mentioned in the Qur’an very early in the history of Islam and at a time when Muslims were weak and even persecuted. God said to His Prophet, ‘Do not obey the kafireen (those who reject the truth) but wage jihad with it (the Qur’an) against them. [25:52]’”

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_jihad.html

If you want to say the Islamic Jihad is comparable to the Christian just war concept, would you say the Muslim Caliphs after Muhammad sinned in their aggressive territorial expansion in Egypt, Jerusalem, Asia Minor, North Africa and Spain? Was Muhammad himself justified in capturing most of Arabia?

Why is there is a militarist streak that runs throughout Islamic history since Muhammad first conquered Arabia?

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. 9 29

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Why is there is a militarist streak that runs throughout Islamic history since Muhammad first conquered Arabia?

Why is there is a militarist streak that runs throughout Protestant Christian history since Protestants first conquered Catholic Europe?
See how easily it can be turned around?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Why is there is a militarist streak that runs throughout Protestant Christian history since Protestants first conquered Catholic Europe?
See how easily it can be turned around?

Depends on the Protestant group, some early Protestants were fiercely pacifist such as the Anabaptist, others recognised governmental authorities and the rights of governments to use force such as the Lutherans or Calvinist sides of the Reformation.

Can Lutheranism and Calvinism survive without state assistance? Does any form of Christianity require that there be a state backing the church and the state enforces the rules of the Church? Are Protestants required to go to physical war and subdue to the unbeliever, force them to pay a specific tax and have their position be known publicly before Christian law?

Built into the text and history of Islam is a militarism that hasn’t faded except in the minds of western Muslims whom are adopting Western ideas. Are we to believe that Muslims since it’s inception has been unfaithful to Islam’s mandates? The Caliphs who knew Muhammad, were they wrong in Islamic theology to conquer the territories they did? What rights did Arabs have in Roman and Persian lands? Christianity for the first three hundreds showed that despite later transgressions (of which there were a lot) that the essence of Christianity is not found in it’s connection to the state, not found in it’s being confused for a theocratic regime. Islam instead of embracing the Gospel embraced the Torah and infuses every aspect of life. This is why Apostates are legally allowed to be killed in many Islamic countries today.

Do you really think Christianity and Islam are on equal footing in terms of their outlook on the world?

 

[Reuben_J]

Why is there is a militarist streak that runs throughout Protestant Christian history since Protestants first conquered Catholic Europe?
See how easily it can be turned around?

While this is not my position, I just think that Islam includes violence in its teaching - examples domestic violence and the exhortation to kill unbelieving enemies therefore Muslims have foundation to be violence when situation allows it, but do you really think that Islam and Christianity are the same when it comes to being violent?

I would be persuaded to believe you if you have strong enough argument to say so. So far none have been able to point out any Christian teaching that really exhorts to beat their wives or to kill unbelievers. The nearest that someone can say about it is to pick a verse from one of the parables of Jesus.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Do you really think Christianity and Islam are on equal footing in terms of their outlook on the world?

No of course not.
I am simply trying to show the futility trying to prove the falseness of a religion based on the behavior of it’s adherents. No religion or race has a corner on human depravity.

 

[Adonia]

Read the Koran. The chief proponent of Islam never preached that people should love their enemies. Any killings by any Christian adherents through these many centuries were done in violation of Christ’s message of love, quite unlike the Islamists who see martial subjugation of others a part of their faith.

 

[meltzerboy]

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?

Islam is just as peaceful a religion as Christianity and Judaism. Individuals within the religion may attempt to distort it and use their Bible (Qur’an) as justification to promote their political agenda (as Christians and Jews have done), but that does not change the fact that the religion itself is peaceful. Verses taken out of context is a game played by those who object to the tenets of Islam, a similar game played by those who object to the tenets of Christianity and Judaism. And it is a most dangerous game.

 

[Reuben_J]

No of course not.
I am simply trying to show the futility trying to prove the falseness of a religion based on the behavior of it’s adherents. No religion or race has a corner on human depravity.

I agree that it would not be accurate to generalise what people do as a proof of what their religion teaches. There are good and bad people or people who committed wars, killing and violence in the name of religion while in actual fact it was just political justification to further their agendas.

Violence in itself is not entirely bad ; sometimes it’s unavoidable and allowed by the religion. It is my opinion after seeing many argument about Islamic teachings that violence is taught and allowed by it.

It is in this aspect that fortunately or unfortunately that Islam has this label and those who think that it gravitates towards violence do have quite legitimate reasons to say so. But for me is what I hear from Muslims themselves - those who defend Jihad or wife beating as necessary to the ultimate cause of Allah and Islam.

 

[abucs]

I agree that it would not be accurate to generalise what people do as a proof of what their religion teaches. There are good and bad people or people who committed wars, killing and violence in the name of religion while in actual fact it was just political justification to further their agendas.

Violence in itself is not entirely bad ; sometimes it’s unavoidable and allowed by the religion. It is my opinion after seeing many argument about Islamic teachings that violence is taught and allowed by it.

It is in this aspect that fortunately or unfortunately that Islam has this label and those who think that it gravitates towards violence do have quite legitimate reasons to say so. But for me is what I hear from Muslims themselves - those who defend Jihad or wife beating as necessary to the ultimate cause of Allah and Islam.

Yes i have to agree. The actions of the founder of the religion, the specially inspired prophet of God is justification for similar actions within a religion by its adherents. It is a central part of a religion and therefore Islam has this internal violent justification where some other religions do not. .

 

[Contarini]

While this is not my position, I just think that Islam includes violence in its teaching - examples domestic violence and the exhortation to kill unbelieving enemies therefore Muslims have foundation to be violence when situation allows it, but do you really think that Islam and Christianity are the same when it comes to being violent?

I would be persuaded to believe you if you have strong enough argument to say so. So far none have been able to point out any Christian teaching that really exhorts to beat their wives or to kill unbelievers. The nearest that someone can say about it is to pick a verse from one of the parables of Jesus.

What is your standard for Christianity?

I love how Christians suddenly become Anabaptists when Islam is in question–suddenly the only thing that matters is Jesus and the Gospels and Christianity is totally pacifist, when the rest of the time most Christians are quite happy to sanction violence and to cite the Bible and Church teaching to support them.

Edwin

 

[goout]

What is your standard for Christianity?

I love how Christians suddenly become Anabaptists when Islam is in question–suddenly the only thing that matters is Jesus and the Gospels and Christianity is totally pacifist, when the rest of the time most Christians are quite happy to sanction violence and to cite the Bible and Church teaching to support them.

Edwin

Looking at the biblia in their full contexts, how do you see the difference between Christ and Mohammed?
I ask this question because most Christians believe Christ to be the embodiment of our scriptures, “the word made flesh”. (Fundamentalism would be an exception.)
When looking at OT violence, we read it through the eyes of Christ, which changes everything.

The difference in the personages matters.
Christianity is personal. I’m not sure about Islam.

 

[Contarini]

Depends on the Protestant group, some early Protestants were fiercely pacifist such as the Anabaptist, others recognised governmental authorities and the rights of governments to use force such as the Lutherans or Calvinist sides of the Reformation.

Can Lutheranism and Calvinism survive without state assistance?

Islam has survived quite well without state assistance in quite a number of contexts.

Does any form of Christianity require that there be a state backing the church and the state enforces the rules of the Church?

Not these days, but in the past certainly. Catholicism required this until Vatican II (in the same sense you can argue that Islam does–if you think that Islam can’t survive without such a situation then you are simply ignorant).

Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker both argued that Christianity was not really a fully functional community until Constantine, because in their way of thinking the Christian community was both political and religious. In fact, in sixteenth and early seventeenth-century England, as in Spain during the same era, there were no “dhimmis” at all–no one who didn’t conform to the state church was allowed to live and function within the nation. Islam has always allowed for non-Muslims to live under Muslim rule, albeit of course not on terms of equality.

And you may not think that the English or the Spanish were acting in accord with the teachings of Christianity. But they sure did. They thought that what they were doing was establishing a godly commonwealth, and they had plenty of support from both Scripture and Church teaching for their view.

Are we to believe that Muslims since it’s inception has been unfaithful to Islam’s mandates?

Apparently you have no problem assuming this about Christians.

The Caliphs who knew Muhammad, were they wrong in Islamic theology to conquer the territories they did? What rights did Arabs have in Roman and Persian lands? Christianity for the first three hundreds showed that despite later transgressions (of which there were a lot) that the essence of Christianity is not found in it’s connection to the state, not found in it’s being confused for a theocratic regime.

And again, crypto-Anabaptism strikes. Apparently everything after Constantine doesn’t really count.

I actually agree with your argument up to a point–I think that Christians do have resources in the first three centuries for resisting the imperialism and lust for power that is deep in our heritage as a historic tradition.

But I’m more interested in actually drawing on those resources and resisting the violence and imperialism of my own religion than I am in preening myself on my superiority to other religions, and using that supposed superiority as an excuse for continued imperialism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Looking at the biblia in their full contexts, how do you see the difference between Christ and Mohammed?

I don’t think the comparison is a particularly helpful or relevant one. Muhammad plays a role in Islam more analogous to Peter or Paul (or both together) than to Jesus.

Jesus bears a role in Christianity more analogous to the Qur’an than to Muhammad.

I believe that God’s fullest revelation is a person–Jesus–and not a book.

I favor a highly Christocentric way of reading Scripture. But historically, Christocentrism has generally not done very much to mitigate violence. The “social reign of Christ the King” and its Protestant counterpart the “crown rights of King Jesus” have more often than not been interpreted in terms of worldly power.

I think we as Christians need to do much better, instead of pontificating about how much better we are than Muslims.

Let’s show the difference that following Jesus makes.

Let’s start, for instance, by admitting Syrian refugees.

If you don’t want to do that, because you are afraid they might be terrorists, then talk about the difference Jesus makes is empty.

Edwin

 

[goout]

I don’t think the comparison is a particularly helpful or relevant one. Muhammad plays a role in Islam more analogous to Peter or Paul (or both together) than to Jesus.

Jesus bears a role in Christianity more analogous to the Qur’an than to Muhammad.

I believe that God’s fullest revelation is a person–Jesus–and not a book.

I favor a highly Christocentric way of reading Scripture. But historically, Christocentrism has generally not done very much to mitigate violence. The “social reign of Christ the King” and its Protestant counterpart the “crown rights of King Jesus” have more often than not been interpreted in terms of worldly power.

I think we as Christians need to do much better, instead of pontificating about how much better we are than Muslims.

Let’s show the difference that following Jesus makes.

Let’s start, for instance, by admitting Syrian refugees.

If you don’t want to do that, because you are afraid they might be terrorists, then talk about the difference Jesus makes is empty.

Edwin

Who can disagree about “walking the walk” and not just talking the talk? Sure. Violence still reigns in the hearts of all of us to one degree or another. It’s not a matter of pontificating. That’s not productive.

Still, Christ is a real and substantial person and He makes Christianity, the substance of it, different from any other belief.
The lived experience of it is of course up to us.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Islam has survived quite well without state assistance in quite a number of contexts.

Not these days, but in the past certainly. Catholicism required this until Vatican II (in the same sense you can argue that Islam does–if you think that Islam can’t survive without such a situation then you are simply ignorant).

Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker both argued that Christianity was not really a fully functional community until Constantine, because in their way of thinking the Christian community was both political and religious. In fact, in sixteenth and early seventeenth-century England, as in Spain during the same era, there were no “dhimmis” at all–no one who didn’t conform to the state church was allowed to live and function within the nation. Islam has always allowed for non-Muslims to live under Muslim rule, albeit of course not on terms of equality.

And you may not think that the English or the Spanish were acting in accord with the teachings of Christianity. But they sure did. They thought that what they were doing was establishing a godly commonwealth, and they had plenty of support from both Scripture and Church teaching for their view.

Apparently you have no problem assuming this about Christians.

And again, crypto-Anabaptism strikes. Apparently everything after Constantine doesn’t really count.

I actually agree with your argument up to a point–I think that Christians do have resources in the first three centuries for resisting the imperialism and lust for power that is deep in our heritage as a historic tradition.

But I’m more interested in actually drawing on those resources and resisting the violence and imperialism of my own religion than I am in preening myself on my superiority to other religions, and using that supposed superiority as an excuse for continued imperialism.

Edwin

Muslims can survive under a foreign law, sure, but is that the situation they themselves want? Do they want foreign secular law interfering with God’s law of Sharia? Do Muslims on the whole not want a Caliph to act as the leader of Islam? Are these elements of Islam that are peripheral and not the desire of faithful Muslims everywhere? My point is Muslims, if they are faithful, do not want Islam in the background of society, they want it in the foreground and plain to all. One cannot deny the Islamic character of Middle eastern Countries for exactly this reason.

I am not so ignorant of Church history as you seem to think I am. I understand that Christianity and the state became intertwined often and perhaps in the providence of God this allowed Catholic/Orthodox Christianity to flourish whereas it might otherwise have floundered. It is however especially pertinent to compare and contrast the Christianity of rulers and nobles with it’s saints. Who is more Christian, Saint Anthony or Constantine? Who represented Christ more to the world Saint Francis of Assisi or Pope Alexander VI? Yes islam allowed for Dhimmis but what was the purpose of Dhimmitude? Was it to provide an example of religious freedom or was it to extort money from the subject populations? The fact that so many Dhimmis converted speaks loudly of how low their position was in Islamic societies, that they were prohibited from living freely and their low position was constantly reinforced.

Recognising the flaws within Christian history is quite easy because no one disputes those flaws, but when someone begins to point out that Islamic history is by no means pure and in many cases much worse than Christian history suddenly we are charged with bigotry. Saying that both sides religious values are equal in terms of promoting peace and stability in the world is to me a blatant Myth. The essence of this conversation need to focus on what Islam itself actually teaches. Is Islamic history of conquest and warfare with all it’s neighbours (the Eastern Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, North Africa and Europe) a violation of Islamic tenants or the result of attempting to spread the influence of Islam? To respond with saying “there were Christians who conquered and controlled non Christian lands” is to not deal with the question itself but instead avoids the troubling implications. Can the efforts of the early Muslim Caliphs and leaders to expand Islam all throughout the world be condemned on the basis of Islam? Do the Hadiths or the Quran say anything that forbids them? In my opinion, no. Can those Christian rulers whom we recognise did bad things, like Constantine, like Theodosius and Justinian be judged by the Gospel? We all say Yes.

So since we have admitted the fault of Christendom perhaps we can move on to the essence of the discussion, is Islam inherently violent?