Is Islam really a peaceful religion?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could we maybe avoid gross overgeneralisation? And not just about the present, but the past also? Admittedly this particular subject is a real noxious Internet Classic (and may be one of G.W. Bush's worst legacies, and that's saying something) so there was no reason to expect better...

[All Along The Watchtower]

Well this thread turned out as expected.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Why are people even talking about Indonesia? The invasion and occupation of East Timor was based on rabid Indonesian Nationalism, not Islamism. About the only religious dimension was the enforced monotheism of Pancasila. (and of course the first independent PM of Timor-Leste was himself a Muslim)

It is true that existing conflicts have been inflamed by the latest fashionable trend of extreme Salafism and political Islam (i.e. secular nationalists/ left-wingers have been largely usurped by Islamism in places ranging from the Philippines to Palestine). But all trendy ideologies must pass - I see no reason to not believe that the current mass Islamism will go the same way as Arab nationalism or other such things that briefly gained a lot of serious thought by the chattering classes of the area before being discarded.

[Famous Mortimer]

Initial Islamic and Christian expansion was violent (and was happening at roughly the same time). Wahabbism and strands of Christianity that are expanding outside of our western bubble are passive agressive. In isolated incidents that can turn violent. Whether you hurl gays off buildings or try to exorcise them both are acts of violence.

The initial Christian expansion was not violent.

[Famous Mortimer]

But in any cause, I don't think it's fair to call Islam an inherently violent religion, just as it's not fair to call Christianity an inherently violent religion. Yes, Islam has more violent strands than Christianity now, but a lot of that has been exacerbated by events and trends that don't necessarily involve the theology itself.

Islam has always involved a high level of violence. Christianity has sometimes had high levels (even higher than Islam even) of violence but other times had almost none at all. Christianity is a mixed bag. Islam is consistently violent.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well Islam as a political power (which it was as well as a religion at first) spread by military means, no doubt. And then, once ensconced in power, structures were established that encouraged conversion (and also out-migration from the Arabian peninsula) and so on and so forth. But the process established was not exactly rapid and huge tracts of the Middle East - less so North Africa where Christianity had been weakened greatly by internal conflict - were majority non-Muslim until surprisingly late in the day. And, much as is the case with Christianity in Europe, you'll search in vain for much evidence of conversion-at-swordpoint that doesn't turn out to be a later fabrication. And actually in one part of what became the Islamic World the Islamic conquest was very good news for Christians; Sassanid Persia was the worst persecutor of Christianity and Christians anywhere until the Tokugawa Shogunate.

Anyway, the ancient world was a violent place and so was the Mediaeval. Both the Bible and the Koran are considerably less 'violent' than a lot surviving broadly contemporaneous texts, many of which are generally regarded as entirely unproblematic; character building even. This sort of 'intellectual' venture is entirely pointless.

[Zioneer]

Why are people even talking about Indonesia? The invasion and occupation of East Timor was based on rabid Indonesian Nationalism, not Islamism. About the only religious dimension was the enforced monotheism of Pancasila. (and of course the first independent PM of Timor-Leste was himself a Muslim)

It is true that existing conflicts have been inflamed by the latest fashionable trend of extreme Salafism and political Islam (i.e. secular nationalists/ left-wingers have been largely usurped by Islamism in places ranging from the Philippines to Palestine). But all trendy ideologies must pass - I see no reason to not believe that the current mass Islamism will go the same way as Arab nationalism or other such things that briefly gained a lot of serious thought by the chattering classes of the area before being discarded.

Well Islam as a political power (which it was as well as a religion at first) spread by military means, no doubt. And then, once ensconced in power, structures were established that encouraged conversion (and also out-migration from the Arabian peninsula) and so on and so forth. But the process established was not exactly rapid and huge tracts of the Middle East - less so North Africa where Christianity had been weakened greatly by internal conflict - were majority non-Muslim until surprisingly late in the day. And, much as is the case with Christianity in Europe, you'll search in vain for much evidence of conversion-at-swordpoint that doesn't turn out to be a later fabrication. And actually in one part of what became the Islamic World the Islamic conquest was very good news for Christians; Sassanid Persia was the worst persecutor of Christianity and Christians anywhere until the Tokugawa Shogunate.

Anyway, the ancient world was a violent place and so was the Mediaeval. Both the Bible and the Koran are considerably less 'violent' than a lot surviving broadly contemporaneous texts, many of which are generally regarded as entirely unproblematic; character building even. This sort of 'intellectual' venture is entirely pointless.

Finally, two perspectives that aren't rabidly anti-history.

[SillyAmerican]

But in any cause, I don't think it's fair to call Islam an inherently violent religion, just as it's not fair to call Christianity an inherently violent religion. Yes, Islam has more violent strands than Christianity now, but a lot of that has been exacerbated by events and trends that don't necessarily involve the theology itself.

Islam has always involved a high level of violence. Christianity has sometimes had high levels (even higher than Islam even) of violence but other times had almost none at all. Christianity is a mixed bag. Islam is consistently violent.

Bottom line:

If a "Christian" endorses the killing of non-Christians (whether now or in the past), I would ask whether or not they are acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If a "Muslim" endorses peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims (whether now or in the past), I would ask whether or not they are acting in accordance with the teachings of Muhammad.

In both of these cases, I would ask for scriptural evidence for your answer. Saying that people who claim to be Christian or Muslim act in both good and bad ways, therefore the two faiths are basically the same? That is ultimately a dangerous avoidance of the root problem.

[Zioneer]

But in any cause, I don't think it's fair to call Islam an inherently violent religion, just as it's not fair to call Christianity an inherently violent religion. Yes, Islam has more violent strands than Christianity now, but a lot of that has been exacerbated by events and trends that don't necessarily involve the theology itself.

Islam has always involved a high level of violence. Christianity has sometimes had high levels (even higher than Islam even) of violence but other times had almost none at all. Christianity is a mixed bag. Islam is consistently violent.

Bottom line:

If a "Christian" endorses the killing of non-Christians (whether now or in the past), I would ask whether or not they are acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If a "Muslim" endorses peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims (whether now or in the past), I would ask whether or not they are acting in accordance with the teachings of Muhammad.

In both of these cases, I would ask for scriptural evidence for your answer. Saying that people who claim to be Christian or Muslim act in both good and bad ways, therefore the two faiths are basically the same? That is ultimately a dangerous avoidance of the root problem.

Bottom line is, no, you're wrong, and as I've been saying this whole time, while scriptures matter, who also matters is the behavior, history, and geopolitical position of a religion that determines the level of violence.

No, the two religions are not the same, but the same calculus applies to both.

There have been periods of history where Islam has not been especially violent by the standards of the time, just as there have been times where Christianity has been especially violent for the standards of the time.

For example, after the Muslims took control of much of the Levant/Palestine/etc, there was some initial violence as there always is with conquest, and yes, it was religiously based, but after the Muslims solidified their control, the levels of oppression and tolerance were hit and miss. Travelers speaking in that time period often compared the situation in the Holy Land to other places, and found Muslim control not especially oppressive. Christians and Jews were considered Dhimmi, which can mean a lot of things depending on the ruler, but literally means "protected non-Muslim person". There's a reason why the Quran says to protect the People of the Book.

But regardless, compare this relatively tolerant rulership (and non-violent... most of the time) of the Holy Land to the First Crusade. The Crusade had frequent murders of Jews on the way to the Holy Land, for example. And Christian chroniclers noted that in the Siege of Jerusalem, the "slaughter was so great, our men waded in blood up to their ankles". Perhaps that's an extreme example, but the frequency of Crusades for several decades normalized that kind of attitude of Christians towards Muslims. And yes, the Muslims fought back, but relatively speaking, the ones more violent in this case were generally the Crusaders.

And the successful Crusaders adopted the rulership style of the Muslims they had overthrown in any case.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's really a meaningless label. None of the three Abraham religions, which are Judaism, Christianity and Islam, rejects war and violence.

Of course, neither can be labeled as inherently violent either.

[SillyAmerican]

It's really a meaningless label. None of the three Abraham religions, which are Judaism, Christianity and Islam, rejects war and violence.

Of course, neither can be labeled as inherently violent either.

Okay, that's an interesting claim; you seem to be agreeing with Zioneer. The problem is everybody likes to speak about these religions in the abstract, as if we don't have any idea what the central figure of each had to say about a given subject. In my initial post, I gave examples of specific verses from the Qur'an regarding the way Muslims should act towards those not of the faith (which is to say, with violence). I then asked for examples of similar scriptures from the Christian book, and none has been forthcoming.

So basically, everyone wants to say that the three religions are the same, but nobody wants to back this claim up with evidence. And by evidence, I don't mean pointing to the activities of past/present pseudo Christians and pseudo Muslims (the people who either don't follow the teachings of their scriptures, or pick and choose from the teachings). No, I'm talking about going to the source, the books themselves, to show if any of these rejects violence and/or exhorts violence.

I'll continue to hold...

[All Along The Watchtower]

Here's an idea: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the same, but none of them are inherently either peaceful or violent.

This discussion really is meaningless though. How can you generalize about...oh, I don't know, billions of people?

A: You really can't.

[SillyAmerican]

Here's an idea: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the same, but none of them are inherently either peaceful or violent.

Again, I'd appreciate specific writings from the central book associated with each of the three religions to back up your claim. (I'm interested in Christianity and Islam, but if you want to broaden it, that's fine; show me where Christianity says that those of other faiths should be killed, or that it's ok to have sex with 9 year old girls).

I'm not trying to "generalize" things. On the contrary, if anything, I'm trying to get down to the specifics of the teachings of the actual faith.

[Zioneer]

Here's an idea: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the same, but none of them are inherently either peaceful or violent.

Again, I'd appreciate specific writings from the central book associated with each of the three religions to back up your claim. (I'm interested in Christianity and Islam, but if you want to broaden it, that's fine; show me where Christianity says that those of other faiths should be killed, or that it's ok to have sex with 9 year old girls).

I'm not trying to "generalize" things. On the contrary, if anything, I'm trying to get down to the specifics of the teachings of the actual faith.

You want specific writings? Well, stop asking us to do it and look it up yourself! If you're not willing to do that, then here you go! Good lord, you're like a broken record.

Of specific note:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From what I've been able to parse, it looks like the bolded says something along the lines of "hey, don't kill the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians), unless they injure you first".

here's another perspective, from Muslims themselves.

Do your own research; the burden of proof is on you. We've been very patient in explaining various points in history where Muslims have been no more or less violent or peaceful than their non-Muslim neighbors, and several cases where they were (slightly) more peaceful.

You're clearly in this thread with an ingrained attitude, and won't budge with any deviation from that.

[dead0man]

Why are people even talking about Indonesia?

It was introduced by your side, as a case where a modern Muslim nation doesn't have issues with it's non-Muslim neighbors.  You've got to admit, it's pretty funny that the "good example" murdered 100,000 non-Muslims in a 20 year period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope you're right.  I'm 87% sure you're not.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Indonesia like all nations of earth (aside from places lile San Marino) has a bloodsoaked history and it would be pseudohistorical rot to claim that SE Asia is a peaceful land of sunshine and harmony. To claim that religion is the primary motivation of bloodshed, betrays a lack of understanding of human behaviour and psychology. Religion is a good way to unify people against an out group, and strengthens one's resolve, but that isn't theological. The sectarianism of some English cities between Catholics and Protestants was not because of theology, it's because religion was a prominent mark of being part of an "other".

Some religions central figures are associated with war. Muhammad for instance, and the various patriarchs of Judaism were undoubtedly warlords. Some central religious figures were non-violent, but their hierarchical successors were not (e.g. Guru Nanak's successors established an empire, the early Popes). I'm not sure it matters tbh.

And if I wanted to be really sage, perhaps the religions with the greatest bloodshed of all are nationalism and the worship of Mammon.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Could we maybe avoid gross overgeneralisation?

On the Atlas Forum?

No.

[SillyAmerican]

You want specific writings? Well, stop asking us to do it and look it up yourself! If you're not willing to do that, then here you go! Good lord, you're like a broken record.

Sorry, I thought the whole purpose of having a discussion topic was to generate discussion. Yes, I've been arguing a specific point of view, and asking for counter arguments. Again, that's the whole point of these posts.

Of specific note:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From what I've been able to parse, it looks like the bolded says something along the lines of "hey, don't kill the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians), unless they injure you first".

here's another perspective, from Muslims themselves.

Do your own research; the burden of proof is on you. We've been very patient in explaining various points in history where Muslims have been no more or less violent or peaceful than their non-Muslim neighbors, and several cases where they were (slightly) more peaceful.

You're clearly in this thread with an ingrained attitude, and won't budge with any deviation from that.

I'm happy to do my own research, but unless somebody can offer a good reason why I shouldn't enlist discussion about this particular topic on a board designated General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy, I'll continue to believe this is not out of line. (Just so we're clear, I'm not just in this thread, I created it. You need not offer responses; that's completely up to you...).

As to the quote you offer, that's a solid one. In fact, there's an even better quote from which we can conclude that Islam forbids the killing of innocent human beings:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(5:32, again the Sahih International translation)

The following is an excellent article regarding what we're really talking about:
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/christian-responses-to-islam-islamism-and-islamic-terrorism-by-colin-chapman/

The two citations I find most interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Peter G. Riddell and Peter Cotterell, Islam in Conflict: Past, Present and Future, IVP, 2003, pp.7–8.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sookhdeo, Understanding Islamic Terrorism, pp.143, 214, 217, and 221.

These views appear to be in line with those of a book I read a few weeks back by Ayaan Hirsi Ali entitled Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, which was the genesis of this discussion.

I welcome the thoughts of others, for those who wish to offer any...

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why not ask a moderate Muslim about the faith he or she practices, rather than trusting that a conversation between a bunch of non-Muslims is going to decisively arrive at objective standards for who is and isn't a "real" Muslim? This is not the first or second time I've asked this question, and I'll guess it won't be the first or second time you've ignored it.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Whenever I read the words "Islam is a religion of peace" in an article, whether it's used sincerely or sarcastically, I immediately stop reading because it means that the author is either an apologist or an Islamophobe who has nothing to add to the discussion either way.

[SillyAmerican]

Why not ask a moderate Muslim about the faith he or she practices, rather than trusting that a conversation between a bunch of non-Muslims is going to decisively arrive at objective standards for who is and isn't a "real" Muslim? This is not the first or second time I've asked this question, and I'll guess it won't be the first or second time you've ignored it.

Well, I was hoping to find some moderate Muslims amongst the Atlas members (or are you saying there aren't any?) But go ahead, ask the question a third or fourth time, maybe the answer will somehow come to you...

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is an utterly meaningless question.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why not ask a moderate Muslim about the faith he or she practices, rather than trusting that a conversation between a bunch of non-Muslims is going to decisively arrive at objective standards for who is and isn't a "real" Muslim? This is not the first or second time I've asked this question, and I'll guess it won't be the first or second time you've ignored it.

Well, I was hoping to find some moderate Muslims amongst the Atlas members (or are you saying there aren't any?) But go ahead, ask the question a third or fourth time, maybe the answer will somehow come to you...

You certainly didn't address your question that way. There are Muslims on this board, though they're few and far between. Encourage their participation.

[dead0man]

At least one of them thinks its ok to murder any Israeli that lives beyond the '67 borders.  Is that moderate?

[Slander and/or Libel]

At least one of them thinks its ok to murder any Israeli that lives beyond the '67 borders.  Is that moderate?

That doesn't deserve a response.