Is Islam a peaceful or violent religion?

[steido01]

I’m not sure that historically we can say that Islam is more violent than Christianity. It would depend on our measure and what we “counted.”

I’m not a fan of getting into ‘Whose sins are bigger?’ either. In this case, it’s impossible to compare anyway because Islam is fundamentally a different institution than Christianity in that the former has been, until just relatively recently, a religious-governmental entity. Christianity, on the other hand, has no mechanism for ruling in the world. It exists outside of whatever form of government exists, which is why it spreads regardless of whether governments advocate it or persecute it. Even when attempts were made to fuse the once-persecuted beliefs of Christianity with political power, God’s and Man’s domains remained separate. Take that most disastrous of examples - the Papal States. The Pope ruled not with the sword of the church, but with the sword of earthly authority outside of that which Christianity granted him. Terrors that happened due to Papal selfishness are thus not the fault of Christianity, but of human governments. Islam has no such separation in practice or concept.

At the risk of being trite: people are violent. It’s a major aspect of human sinfulness. Given the power, most groups will use that power in violent ways. And if they believe in divine revelation, they will appeal to that revelation to support their violence.

Indeed.

 

[goout]

How does it not address the accusations? It makes a prima facie case, for example, that the crusades were in response to approximately 400 years of Islamic aggression into Christian lands.

Whether they happen “on all sides” is not the proper question. It is more appropriate to ask whether they happen with equal frequency and intensity on all sides.

I get that.
It’s also fodder for endless circular arguments, which is it’s own prima facie case.

I’m not disagreeing with his conclusions. I’m simply looking at the only true and meaningful difference in interpreting scriptures/quaran, which is our Lord, to whom violence is unacceptable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I get that.
It’s also fodder for endless circular arguments, which is it’s own prima facie case.

I’m not disagreeing with his conclusions. I’m simply looking at the only true and meaningful difference in interpreting scriptures/quaran, which is our Lord,** to whom violence is unacceptable.**

The Church subscribes to just war theory. Violence is not necessarily unacceptable, although it certainly ought not be a first resort, nor even high on the list. It isn’t to be left off the list completely, otherwise pacificism becomes a doctrine of the Church - which it isn’t.

 

[porthos11]

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?

I can admit to peaceful Muslims. I’ve seen them and met them

However, I will still not dare draw a Muhammad cartoon in front of these peaceful Muslims.

Because while there are peaceful Muslims, there is no such thing as peaceful Islam.

 

[goout]

The Church subscribes to just war theory. Violence is not necessarily unacceptable, although it certainly ought not be a first resort, nor even high on the list. It isn’t to be left off the list completely, otherwise pacificism becomes a doctrine of the Church - which it isn’t.

Ok yes correct.
What I mean to say is that unjust violence is unacceptable to Christianity.
Capricious violence.
And we have to be careful we don’t abuse the just war doctrine.

In that Jesus makes Christianity radically different from Muhammed, despite the unjust behavior of Christians.

 

[Tomdstone]

Muhammad was not like Jesus who did not use force…

Some passages of Scripture indicate the contrary, that Jesus did support the use of force:
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’" Luke 19:27
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword “ Matthew 10:34
Jesus also used force to cleanse the temple:
“He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves. And He would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. “ Mark 11:15 – 16.

 

[goout]

Some passages of Scripture indicate the contrary, that Jesus did support the use of force:
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’" Luke 19:27
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword “ Matthew 10:34
Jesus also used force to cleanse the temple:
“He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves.AndHe would not allowanyoneto carry merchandisethroughthe*temple courts. “ Mark 11:15 – 16.

And then you have the crucifixion…

We read the bible as a whole, in context of the whole, with Christ as the key to interpretation.
Fundamentalism takes isolated passages as representing the full truth.

 

[Tomdstone]

How does it not address the accusations? It makes a prima facie case, for example, that the crusades were in response to approximately 400 years of Islamic aggression into Christian lands.

Whether they happen “on all sides” is not the proper question. It is more appropriate to ask whether they happen with equal frequency and intensity on all sides.

The Fourth Crusade ended up looting Greek Churches in Greece and Catholic crusaders violently raping Greek Orthodox nuns.

 

[goout]

The Fourth Crusade ended up looting Greek Churches in Greece and Catholic crusaders violently raping Greek Orthodox nuns.

I am shocked that Christians did evil things!
Not…

That doesn’t really address the question at hand.

(Do you see what I mean Peter?)

 

[Tomdstone]

We read the bible as a whole, in context of the whole, with Christ as the key to interpretation.
Fundamentalism takes isolated passages as representing the full truth.

What is your interpretation of Luke 19:27 ?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Some passages of Scripture indicate the contrary, that Jesus did support the use of force:
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’" Luke 19:27
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword “ Matthew 10:34
Jesus also used force to cleanse the temple:
“He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves. And He would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. “ Mark 11:15 – 16.

The first is a parable, more or less indicating what Jesus will do in his judgement of humanity upon his return. He did not literally order his apostles to bring people before him and kill them.

But I am corrected to a certain extent on the cleansing of the temple, Jesus did use force to kick out the merchants. Yet the use of force is not a prevailing theme of Christ’s ministry. He shows he is capable but more often than not once a crowd or his opponents become incensed he will escape from their notice and during his final hours he will submit to governing authorities and allow them to kill and crucify him. Peter defends Christ with a sword and is told to put it back because the message of Jesus is not ultimately about force.

Let us compare this to Islam, from the inception the Prophet Muhammad warred for governmental control of the Arabian peninsula and his successors felt at liberty to invade the Christian lands of Egypt, North Africa, Jerusalem and Asia Minor. There is a code of warfare written into Islam which expects it to subjugate the whole world. The first three hundred years of Christianity prove that the essence of Christianity was not spread by violent compulsion but by sincere conversion often against great adversity.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

What is your interpretation of Luke 19:27 ?

Jesus is telling a parable here.

"As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” - Luke 19:11-27

The parable seems to be talking about how all who rejected and hated the Lord will have to face ultimate judgment one day from God and that they will be punished. Jesus is in no way inciting any kind of human governance here. This parable doesn’t even have anything to do with whether one should act peaceful or violent. I don’t really think any Chrstian has interpreted this verse as such. This is a good example of really bad cherry picking.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Define Islam. Is it an ideal, the community, the political leadership, religious leaders, the majority schools, minority schools? What is it?

One can point to individuals and say how wonderful it is, and how depraved, loving and terrible. One needs to narrow what they are asking first.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

Define Islam. Is it an ideal, the community, the political leadership, religious leaders, the majority schools, minority schools? What is it?

One can point to individuals and say how wonderful it is, and how depraved, loving and terrible. One needs to narrow what they are asking first.

I have mostly refrained from giving my opinion in the discussion, but I think now would be a good time to do so.

I think if we’re going to define Islam it’s important to define the other two major Abrahamic faiths also.

Judaism - Judaism is very unique in regards to what a member of its faith is. Judaism has often been defined as an ethnic group or as a religion or both. I think it’s somewhere in the middle because someone can be born Jewish. You can have Jewish blood, and as a Jew you’ll always be a Jew (at least to the conservative denominations of Judaism). But one can also be a convert to Judaism without any prior Jewish history in their background. It seems to be a middle way between an ethnic group and a religion. For the lack of better words the best way I can describe it is as a “culture.” Judaism is a culture which has its roots in the ancient Israelite’s. Judaism puts more emphasis on its people and its future rather than the rest of humanity. The specific set of laws that Judaism holds can be found in the Torah (Pentateuch for Christians), a group of five books which discuss the history of the early Israelite’s and their relationship to Yahweh God. These laws specifically apply to Jews and Jews only and there is absolutely no mandate on gentiles (non-Jews). For this, Judaism does not proselytize, seeing no reason for doing such as Judaism applies only to Jews while gentiles can live good lives with their own cultures without Judaism. Judaism has never sought to conquer, its people are primarily based in the region of Palestine were the people seek to keep to themselves and worship at their holy sites in Jerusalem. But unfortunately the presence of other Abrahamic religions (mainly Islam) bars them from having this.

Christianity - Christianity is primarily just a religion. It has two sets of religious texts, the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament which it combines into one book [the Bible] and where it draws its morals and doctrines from. Christianity arose from Judaism, but unlike Judaism, Christianity does not center around a specific group of people. Christianity is for all people of every nation, race, and culture. Christianity believes its moral codes apply to everyone. Christianity believes sin is universal and thus a universal atonement was needed for mankind. Christianity believes that Jesus’s ultimate sacrifice was for all of humankind (except Calvinist lol ) and that all who follow Christ will be granted eternal life and be saved from sin which was passed down by Adam. Christianity noticeably puts more attention on actual theology than both Judaism and Islam. Christianity primarily spread through proselytism and missionary work and continues to do so. Its religious leaders are clergy who, although throughout history have sometimes been given political positions, conduct religious rituals for the people specifically for religious purposes and which have no political root.

Islam - Finally we have Islam. Islam is not just a cultural group and is universal just like Christianity (though no doubt there is a lot of attention to Arab culture), yet it is not just a religion either and this can be seen by how it operates. Islam acts more as an empire, an actual state of people that seeks to conquer and establish its own laws and codes. Islam primarily spread through conquest, that is what incited the first Crusades; Christian nations defending the holy land from the Islamic empire. Muhammad, unlike Jesus, was a military leader. He and his successors sought to spread the scope of their political influence. Islam sought to unite all people under the one legal code of Sharia under the Caliph (the Caliphate has been abolished due to the recent history of the middle east in the past century, although this does not mean the Caliphate cannot be restored and indeed many Muslims hopes for a restoration). Islam from the start was more than just a religion, but a political community of people seeking to expand its influence through conquest and with the added addition that it was from God. Muslims themselves even call the Islamic community the “Ummah” which is Arabic for “tribe.” This is why it cannot interact well with other nations or groups of people. Temporary peace may be established but eventually violence breaks out and Islam sets its eyes on conquest. As long as there is Islam and other groups of people there will be violence. There will be no peace until the entire world converts to Islam and this is even according to Islamist and fundamentalist.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You are right that Christianity ideally is not tribal, but in practice, depending on the location, religion and ethnicity are intertwined. To be Egyptian and Christian is to be Copt, Lebanese and Christian - Melkite or Maronite, Iraqi and Christian - Assyrian or Chaldean, etc

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Fourth Crusade ended up looting Greek Churches in Greece and Catholic crusaders violently raping Greek Orthodox nuns.

Let’s at least place what happened into context.

There were two aspects to the fourth crusade which went wildly askew.

The crusaders contracted with the Venetians to supply them with ships for their crusade which was to head to Egypt. When the numbers of crusaders were about a third of what were expected, the Venetians were left with a huge problem. They had suspended their trading business for a full year to ready the ships that were supposed to carry the 33 000 crusaders. When only about 11 000 showed up, the Doge of Venice suggested the crusaders could make up the funds by capturing the city of Zara, which was at the time a constant battleground between Venice and Hungary. The capture of Zara was to repay the Venetians for providing the ships the Crusaders needed to transport them to Egypt to fight the crusade. Pope Innocent III forbade the action and excommunicated the crusaders for their actions.

While at Zara, they encountered Alexios Angelos (IV) the son of the recently deposed Isaac II Angelos the former Byzantine Emperor who had been overthrown and likely murdered in a coup within the Byzantine Empire. Alexios convinced the Crusaders to side with him in a countercoup against those who had deposed his father. He promised to help fund the crusade and provide 10 000 Byzantine soldiers to go on crusade after he regained the crown as emperor. They succeeded in taking Constantinople and restoring Alexios to the throne, but a faction within the city led by Mourtzouphlos killed Alexios Angelos, and crowned Mourtzouphlos, Emperor Alexios V. He blocked the crusaders from the city. The crusaders demanded Alexios V honour the commitments made by Alexios Angelos. When he refused they beseiged the city a second time.

Here is a proper historical analysis of what happened:

youtu.be/0r376MkZwLI
youtu.be/JVA4n73UBi0

It must by emphasized that the pope at the time, Innocent III condemned the attack on Zara and excommunicated anyone who took part in it. As well, he officially informed the crusaders not to support Alexios and condemned the attacks on Constantinople.

The coup against Alexios’ father and then Alexios’ assassination by Mourtzouphlos showed that the empire was already in a divided state with various factions competing for control. In fact, the divided support within the city of Constantinople when the crusaders undertook their sieges was probably the main reason they could conquer it twice – since the crusaders were outnumbered about ten to one – and a likely factor in their final sack of it, since they had no clear way of telling who they were defending and who was opposing them.

This is a complicated event to unravel, but it certainly wasn’t as simple as you are trying to make out. Using writers like Runciman or Gibbons will not provide the most historically accurate account of what happened.

More recent historians such as Jonathan Phillips, Thomas Madden and Christopher Tyerman are building a far more detailed and accurate account of the crusades than has been available.

 

[Reuben_J]

Jesus is telling a parable here.

"As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” - Luke 19:11-27

The parable seems to be talking about how all who rejected and hated the Lord will have to face ultimate judgment one day from God and that they will be punished. Jesus is in no way inciting any kind of human governance here. This parable doesn’t even have anything to do with whether one should act peaceful or violent. I don’t really think any Chrstian has interpreted this verse as such. This is a good example of really bad cherry picking.

Just wondering. It is interesting to note that Muslims often used this verse in saying Jesus teaches Christians to kill in the Bible but would an average Muslim knows what a parable is. I know that they claim to know about Jesus. Sometimes they even claim that they know Jesus more than the Christians.

*par•a•ble
ˈperəb(ə)l/
noun
a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.
*​

If the claim is true, do they know the teachings of Jesus especially those that are contained in parables? Does the Quran record any parable of Jesus?

I often see Muslims bringing out Lk 19:27 as proof of violence in Christianity’s doctrines. However, none of those who bring up this verse ever indicated that it was part of a parable.

So, did Mohammad use parable in his teachings and are Muslims familiar about parables that are told by Jesus?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Big difference between the Meccan and Medina Suras.

And the radical Islamists will say that the peaceful ayahs(no compulsion in religion) are abrogated in favor of the calls of Jihad against the non believers.

So, take it for what it’s worth. I have noticed that the Sufis and Ahmadis are very nice and peaceful people.

And a small percentage of extremists make the religion as a whole look bad…and they terrorize fellow Muslims as well. The refugees from Syria are Muslims and they are trying to get away from the maniacs just as much as we are.

I just wish the peaceful ones would start to speak up when they notice the radicals acting strangely. Just ignoring terrorist behavior/plots makes one a accomplice.

 

[Tomdstone]

It must by emphasized that the pope at the time, Innocent III condemned the attack on Zara and excommunicated anyone who took part in it. As well, he officially informed the crusaders not to support Alexios and condemned the attacks on Constantinople. .

Since the Pope condemned the attack, why did so many Catholic Churches in the west accept the vast amount of loot that was stolen from the Greek Churches in Constantinople? Much of the stolen loot was never returned?

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

Since the Pope condemned the attack, why did so many Catholic Churches in the west accept the vast amount of loot that was stolen from the Greek Churches in Constantinople? Much of the stolen loot was never returned?

Innocent III threatened excommunication on anyone who took part in the siege on Zara and condemned the attacking of other Christians but the crusaders did not listen and did anyway. Then of course the sacking of Constantinople occurred but Innocent III didn’t even know this occurred until afterwards and he condemned it. He did approve of the establishment of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople in hopes that it would heal the rift between east and west.

Pope Innocent III out of rage at what happened at Constantinople wrote to the papal legate:

“How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, whose swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans [Islamic controllers of holy land], are now dripping with Christian blood * they have spared neither age nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics.”

The simple truth of the matter was, even though the Pope has condemned these actions many of the crusaders simply did not listen and chose to ignore him.