Is Islam a religion of peace , or is it inherently violent ?

[aneeshm]

For a very long time now ( at least seventeen years , which is my entire lifespan ) , the liberals in the USA , in India ( where I live ) and the makers of textbooks have repeatedly claimed that Islam is essentially a religion of peace .

It is my belief that history textbooks should not have any bias , and that all important events should be chronicled impartially and with accordance with the facts known at the time . This is why I find repulsive the censorship by the liberal textbook-makers of anything that does not fit with the spin they give to the textbook .

Again and again , with the same old phrases , have I heard the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace . And have not recieved a shred of proof to support this claim . When I enquired about how many were killed during the Crusades , I found the statistics wanting . This , in the same textbook which cites the statistics and even methods used by the Nazis for executing prisoners .

When we studied the Vijaynagar empire of Central India , we were told of its great prosperity and strength . It's decline was attributed to decay and the erosion of its greatest institutions . I learnt the real cause on Wikipedia - that an army of THREE neighbouring Muslim states ( much bigger in terms of land area ) defeated the Vijaynagaran army on the plain of Talikota , and that they proceeded to completely loot , raze , and depopulate the city over a period of time . This , to a city which compared favourably with the best cities in Europe at the time . The only thing that remain are huge ruins , covering hundreds of acres . Not even a village to mark the final place of death of what was arguably the world's greatest city at the time .

The multiple instances of Muslim intolerance and barbarism when engaged in conquest came home to me only when I read a book by a rather prominent Muslim historian , M.J. Akbar ( called "The Shade of Swords" , which explores jihad through the ages ) .



I have no objection to teachings which are essentially tolerant , but deliberately ignoring the facts of history is unethical and deserves condemnation .











Back to the point , who here thinks that Islam is essentially a peaceful religion ( please do not base this on the bahaviour of your Muslim friends , the tempering influence of Western civilisation cannot be ignored , and the Muslims who chose to historically leave their homelands were nto the average ) , or an inherently violent one , please state why you think so and what should be done about the glossing over of historical Muslim atrocities in the education system .

[BeBro]

I'd say it is inherently religious.

[lord of the mark]

for a religion thats 1400 years old, and has stretched over lands from Morocco to Indonesia, and Bosnia to Nigeria, ANY generalization is likely to be wrong.

[aneeshm]

Here I use the Quran as the ultimate reference , not only history . So if a thing is in the Quran , it is taken to be a part of Islam . The orthodox Quran , that is .

[Shogun Gunner]

all religions get manipulated by secular goals. Many of the highest religious leaders of all major religions have at one time or another been corrupt, awful people.

For example, several Popes during the early to middle ages were essentially warmongering Kings bent on conquering and destruction of rival nation states.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Here I use the Quran as the ultimate reference , not only history . So if a thing is in the Quran , it is taken to be a part of Islam . The orthodox Quran , that is .

as someone who follows a text based tradition (Judaism, in my case) i dont think you can judge a religion by sitting and down and reading its core text, without taking into account how that text has been interpretated at different times and places. Ive seen too many people read the Hebrew bible, and then attacked a "Judaism" they found there, that bears no resemblance to any Judaism Ive ever seen. Religions are living entities, even when based on texts, and NO text has meaning without interpretation. And theres no reason to privilege so-called "literal" interpretations.

[DanS]

Islam is a peaceful religion overall. But several interpretations of Islam are not at all peaceful.

[Az]

All religions are inherently violent.

Religions

Islam

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Azazel
All religions are inherently violent.

Religions

Islam

good point. They tend to be exclusive and demonize, sometimes literally, "the opposition".

I find it interesting hearing one religious group attacking another for being a cult. How do they define a "cult" again????

[Whoha]

The history books aren't talking about that, atleast in the US, because they are too focused on the US itself. World history is sorely lacking in US lesson plans(some of it, sanitized however, is in the book itself).

[Japher]

IMO, anytime religion is used as a basis for government the power that is obtained by the ruling class is so great that it corupts. Thus, while the religion in of itself can peaceful it's application as a means to control will be faced with scrutiny from those it is meant to govern.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Azazel
All religions are inherently violent.

Religions

Islam

One could say that people are inherently violent. People



-Arrian

[Az]

Where did you see me saying that violence is always bad?

[aneeshm]

Let me rephrase the question a little - is Islam principally violent ?

[Japher]

is Islam principally violent ?

Yes, but so is christianity. Some of the crap they want me to do ppl is nuts!

[Arrian]

Japher

Monkey!

-Arrian

[Shogun Gunner]

Prolly no more than other organized religions if you are looking for this type of message, text, etc.

Christianily and Judaism are rooted in the same core texts with a lot of overlap, but neither are as fundamentalistic as Islam is today. It's just Islam's turn I guess, but I believe it's the mullahs, teachers and believers that are focusing on those parts of Islam that are violent. Rather myopically.

[GePap]

No, Islam is not inherently violent. The issue is how one interprets the words. We no longer stone adulterers in Christian lands and Jewish lands, even thought the Bible is pretty clear about that being God's ordered punishment.

IIRC, the warriors that brought HInduism into India swept aside the previous inhabitants and drove them south. Does that make Hinduism inherently violent?

[Japher]

Any religion that has, as part of it's teaching, a message that states that those who do not believe as you do are evil, vile, barbarian, or somehow not your equal has the potential to be dangerous as far as a nonsecular crowd is concerned. Religion incites deep emotions, anger being one of them

[aneeshm]

IIRC , Hinduism was a fusion of the cultures of the Aryan invaders and the Dravadian south , and it is not principally violent as far as the texts are concerned ( it is usually texts or tradition which determined the principles behind a religion ) .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Let me rephrase the question a little - is Islam principally violent ?

In the 7th century it WAS very violent, and very expansionist. After that it settled down, and individual states went there seperate ways. Many states were violent in the way that ALL states were violent, esp at the time. In SOME Islam was used as an ideology to justify state violence. And from time to time a more violent and fundamentalist form of Islam motivated violence beyond state interests.

In the 19th century Islam confronted modernity. With difficulty. Some attempted a modernized form, in which the notion of jihad was reinterpretated away from violence, while some attempted a purified, "literalist" version of Islam. Others were still distant from the modern world.

I would suggest Bernard Lewis, esp "The Political Language of Islam"

[GePap]

Universal religions like Islam and Christianity that say they bring salvation to all, and not just one group (like Judaism or Hinduism) need to adapt to local traditions to make it- hence all the different sects and large variations through the world.

For example, Islam in places were it arrived by trade (Indonesia, East Africa) is more moderate overall than Islam in places that it arrived to by the sword.

Another issue is the politics of the day and how religion is used.

Islam is "lucky" that the number of lives destroyed in its name remains far bellow those of Christianity- the Spaniards did a great deal on that.

[Japher]

Hinduism was a fusion of the cultures of the Aryan invaders and the Dravadian south , and it is not principally violent as far as the texts are concerned

Do a google search on Hindu and violence... As GePap says

The issue is how one interprets the words

any form of fanatacism (is that a word?) can become violent... nationalism included.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
for a religion thats 1400 years old, and has stretched over lands from Morocco to Indonesia, and Bosnia to Nigeria, ANY generalization is likely to be wrong.

What LotM said.

[aneeshm]

I repeat , the question is not whether the religion's history is violent , but whether the reiligon is , in principle , as a stated part of it's message , violent . I do not think Hinduism , Buddhism , Jainism , or msot other non-organised religions come under that category .

[GePap]

so your entire issue then lies in the interpretation of the idea of Jihad, cause most other issues like womens rights and so forth were all short in the ancient times.

personally, the idea of Jihad is easily interpreted in a violent way, so if that is the question, is it easier to interpret Islam violently than Christianity, then YES. Is it then inherently violent? No. It depends on the person doing the reading.

[Dis]

islam is a religion of violence. It was born out of violence, and it will die by violence.

[Thucydides]

I think warfare has been an integral part of the spread of Islam since it's begginning. However, I think up to recently Muslims had an idea of rules of warfare, of chivarly so to speak. Look at Saladin, who was more Chivalrous then the Crusaders he fought. I idea of War and Jihad are instrumental in Islam, but I think it takes a very obtruse view of Islam to justify the whole sell slaughters that have occassionally occured in Muslim countries.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I repeat , the question is not whether the religion's history is violent , but whether the reiligon is , in principle , as a stated part of it's message , violent . I do not think Hinduism , Buddhism , Jainism , or msot other non-organised religions come under that category .

But some of us dont accept the premise of your question. Religion doesnt exist in principle, apart from its history. Different muslims have stated different messages, and have all claimed to speak as the TRUE, the AUTHENTIC, voice of Islam. Which is REALLY the true voice? How can one who denies the truth VALUE of Islam in general say so? A religion which is not "THE TRUE RELIGION" can hardly be said to have one true voice - its voices are those that one observes in history, and all are equally "true". In the same way I can tell you which form of Judaism is THE TRUE voice, since I can cite the fundamental, TRUE, principles of Judaism that make it so(of course that would be confusing too, since I believe the TRUE principle of Judaism are fundamentally pluralistic, evolutionary one, but thats another story). I CANNOT tell you which interpretation, of say, Mormonism is true, since I see no fundamental TRUE priniciple by which to judge it, since i dont follow it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Thucydides
I think warfare has been an integral part of the spread of Islam since it's begginning. However, I think up to recently Muslims had an idea of rules of warfare, of chivarly so to speak. Look at Saladin, who was more Chivalrous then the Crusaders he fought. I idea of War and Jihad are instrumental in Islam, but I think it takes a very obtruse view of Islam to justify the whole sell slaughters that have occassionally occured in Muslim countries.

Saladin is a very notable expection to the trend of religious warriors being total barbarians. Especially in the middle ages Christian & Muslim conflict was usually very brutal and unchivalrous but Saladin was different so different even the cronicalers of the crusaders, people not noted for their fairness towards muslims, praised some of Saladin's actions.