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

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
problem_child:

are you an angry atheist or are you singling out Islam (which means submission, not peace, by the way) as bad but not Christianity?

No, All religions apall me with their power to push backward anthropocentric narrow-mindedness on society as if they speak from some higher level.

To me, religions represent a kind of nationalistic egotism that insists on somehow 'owning' nature, using the cosmic-alphamale-imaginary-friend concept that in english is commonly known as 'god'.

Take blasphemy for example, the idea of blasphemy is that insulting a 'god' is a deep and utterly vile thing to do. But how can that which is unlimited possibly be insulted? There is no way that Infinity itself could be insulted. The real reason why certain people can be offended by 'blasphemy', is that to insult this god of theirs (possesive intended), you are really insulting them, your are spitting at the highest expression of their collective identity. It's mere ego, the origin of all the stars in the universe, of all time and life and what we call physics, can't possibly be insulted by anything a human being could say, because to be insulted is a uniquely human idea. You have to be 'some guy' to be insulted.

And yet all these religions, from Christians to Muslims, would probably have you flogged or killed or something (if the state in question is run by them at least) if you do something they consider 'blasphemous'.

To them all I say this, take your god and stick him up your exit-passage you sanctimonious overbearing trumped up egotist prig.

So in answer to your question, yes, I'm an angry athiest.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

That's a problem of most religions at most times of history. Most of us would agree that there's a difference between the message of the bible and witchhunts or even crusades. But that doesn't free religions from responability. Of course, there's always a range between very liberal interpretations and times and brutal ones, depending on economic conditions, general brutalization after /during wars etc. But it's often something from within religions that is the focus and religious issues canalize hate and violence. Thus I can't hear anymore, that wherever violence happens, religion is "taken hostage" or simply "abused" by society. Religion is part of a society and not simply a tool used and twisted by it.

I would agree with the gist of what you say here, but what I was also meaning to say is that what a society may accept as "religion" may in fact be against the spirit of that very religion. I believe that's the case on an acute level in the Muslim world today. But yes, that does not absolve any society from the responsibility to face the darker sides of its "religion".

It is always very easy in discussion for muslims to push away topics they don't like by saying: "This is not islam". Well, I know many muslims don't support violence from a religious viewpoint, but the ways, they deal with it can most often be subsummed in 2 sentences:
"But hey, look at Christian history."
"I'm muslim, I don't like violence and intolerance, so it must not be part of islam" (I've often heard denials like "that must be a lie. this cannot be in Quran.", even after I showed the very verses)
Honest reflection has to analyze the internal elements in a religion that may lead to fundamentalism, hate and intolerance.

To tell you the truth, I also hate the "look at christianity" answer. It's part of the reflex that assumes nothing is wrong with what they accept as their "religion".

When I discuss a particular aspect of any Islamic topic with a Muslim, say, that women are not ordered to wear headscarves in the Quran, the "this cannot be in Quran" response you mention turns into "but this is in the Quran!". When I recite the verse and give its number etc, it's "but I'm sure it's in the Quran!". Basically, this is the outer reflection of an inherent laziness to think about God and religion directly, and instead surrender one's spiritual world to the "teachings and sayings" of others...Saudis are particularly impenetrable in this respect.

That's in many parts true. But it's nonetheless also true that Wahabits and fundamentalists go back to the very roots of what islam "is", namely Quran, sunna and hadith. It's not like in the Catholic church, where, after so many centuries, you'd have to dig very deep sometimes to find the bible. It's just too easy, again, to say "this is not islam". This is not MY islam maybe, but that's a bit muslims have a difficult time with as there can be only ONE islam. That's part of the problem in internal discussion.

Wahhabis want a complete return to the lifestyle of the 7th century, so as not to have to confront the questions that arise with the coming of modernity and the change in physical as well as moral attitudes. In that quest, they adopt a very literal and narrow interpretation of Quran, elevate the status of the Hadith almost on par with the Quran, and have a fancy range of "supporting" hadiths from which to impose a very rigid version of "sunna". Ultimately, theirs is ultimately also an interpretation and practice, and a very repulsive one at that.

The problem is that we're not discussing the overall islam, but it's affintiy towards violence here. Otherwise, I fully agree that there are many positive sides too.

On Islam's affinity for violence: Islam overall has a very down-to-earth and realistic teaching. That includes, if you are attacked, defend your life, save yourself, make an effort. When it was born, Islam had to fight for its existence, against a very serious danger from pagan Arabs. Thereafter, it became part and parcel of governance. Since governance comes attached with the tools of violence, both in terms of internal security and external threats, religion itself was frequently invoked to justify these.

This resulted in an overlooking that Islam basically is a guide for the individual for a decent, just and peaceful life, an emphasis on the collective and an accumulation of state-ordained clerical approval for putting a religious sanction on war. Again, this in total oblivion to the message of the Quran itself, but as a result, Islam looked from the outside as having violence inherent to it, for no religion has been made so integral by its followers to so many aspects of any society.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Again, I'm worried that people take this seriously .

Alas, people take religion seriously, so it is beholden upon us to take a question such as this seriously.

And I take very seriously anyone such as Speer who defends 'his' religion with fake history and equivocations, and false accusations against other 'Poly posters.


And this quote of problem_child's, is let's face it, entirely applicable to Christianity:

" Could this be because Islam is a relentlessly expansionistic and imperialistic religion that conquored and subdued its way through hundreds of cultures throughout Africa and Asia and parts of Europe, from Morocco to Indonesia and from Bosnia to Nigeria, the many diverse ways of life practised by the peoples of these lands exterminated forever...."

But then it would seem to be a problem or defect inherent in any monotheistic creed of a proselytizing nature- unless you restrict missionary activity to the type of martyrdoms favoured by the Irish monks and nuns, any state reinforced by such a faith is not going to sit on its collective hands.

In any case, like a good polemicist, problem_child overeggs his pudding- Islamic merchants and sailors were equally adept at spreading their faith not simply by conquest, but by example.

Islam's emphasis on bodily hygiene and fastidiousness with regard to animal products may well have stood its adherents in good stead in moist hot climates such as South East Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines and East Africa.

[Whaleboy]

I must say re. the Muslim conquests, people seem to think of that and assume a campaign of pillaging and slaughter, but in fact that wasn't the case for the most part. You had an economically prosperous, liberal and just (consider the alternatives), and intellectual vibrant society, with indeed a very small army conquering a vast swathe of land in a very small amount of time, because the conquered peoples wanted it. The Roman empire was long gone, the Byzantine empire was a shambles, everything had gone to pot and other leaders were generally barberous to their peoples, whereas those under Muslim authority were allowed to keep much of their legistlature, culture, customs, religions, and had their infrastructure and economies boosted. I would have considered the Muslim conquest to be a good thing .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

I would have considered the Muslim conquest to be a good thing .

Unless you were a Zoroastrian priest, Sassanid Emperor or Berber.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ramo

Well look around the world and see how well Muslims in general are getting along with their neighbors. Not very well. Of course they aren't getting along with each other either, whether internally or externally.

It's one thing to say that Muslims often don't get along all that well with those of other religions/sects; it's another thing completely to say that they never get along.

Agreed.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Err, I didn't think I was saying it wasn't.....

I thought that what aneeshm was saying was that firstly Hinduism was more 'peaceful' than Islam, then secondly that the kshatriya were there in response to either Islam or Alexander, neither of which frankly seems at all likely, if they already exist in the Rig Veda.

Yea, I was agreeing that the warrior caste predates Islam and Alexander and going perhaps further (depending on what you meant) by saying that it in fact predates the Aryan invasion and the formation of Hinduism itself.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Wahhabis want a complete return to the lifestyle of the 7th century, so as not to have to confront the questions that arise with the coming of modernity and the change in physical as well as moral attitudes. In that quest, they adopt a very literal and narrow interpretation of Quran, elevate the status of the Hadith almost on par with the Quran, and have a fancy range of "supporting" hadiths from which to impose a very rigid version of "sunna". Ultimately, theirs is ultimately also an interpretation and practice, and a very repulsive one at that.

I absolutely agree. I'd never claim Wahhabis would constitute something like THE islam, or even to say it's "original" or "the only authentic" or whatever, that'd be completely stupid. I merely wanted to say that it's too simple for other muslims to say: "This is irrelevant to us. Their patterns of thinking have nothing to do with islam."

Islam looked from the outside as having violence inherent to it, for no religion has been made so integral by its followers to so many aspects of any society.

Right, and I also agree that this may have positive effects. But it, of course, is also likely to clash with any secular understanding of society or equidistance to religions as basically EVERYTHING in society is "integral" to islam.


With the rest, again, agreed.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
and of course what was a major reason for the Muslims' success? Religious minorities around the Byzantine Empire (Coptics, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.), persecuted by the Byzantines for years, sided with the Arabs.

Not Coptics, but Copts, and they were monophysites.
Nestorians were hardly present on Byzantine-controlled lands.
Also, the Copts revolted several times after Muslim conquest, which can indicate they weren't so happy with Muslim rule; but true that many, especially Syrians, were happy of getting rid of Byzantines.
Someone commented it anyway

Take blasphemy for example, (...) because to be insulted is a uniquely human idea. You have to be 'some guy' to be insulted.

While it is an interesting topic I'm hesitant about, You tend to forget that God actually IS a being, a mind, a "guy" if You like.
However, if we get to the point that He's completely forgiving and loving, He will forgive any biasphemy.
But if You think that offending God is in fact offending the one believing in Him, and it is so, well, is offending anyone anything good?

And yet all these religions, from Christians to Muslims, would probably have you flogged or killed or something (if the state in question is run by them at least) if you do something they consider 'blasphemous'.

If something was done in mere intention of offending a faith, it should be prohibited or at least condemned.
Because malicious offending someone just for offending him is not anything that should be approved.
But otherwise, and perhaps even in these situations -
in Christianity, perhaps we should give our other chin. After all, Jesus said that blessed are those who will be persecuted and offended because of Him.

Ancyrean,
It's not like that Islam just defended against pagans under Muhammad and especially later.

But it, of course, is also likely to clash with any secular understanding of society or equidistance to religions as basically EVERYTHING in society is "integral" to islam.

And that's the biggest problem.
Ancyrean, what do You think about shari'a?
If the shari'a is considered essential part of a life of a Muslim, not as his personal path, but as a system of law for entire society, and this Muslim believes that it's a will of God to make it a law for entire society, or even just for Muslims, it is in disaccordance with democracy and this is a cause to the question if Islam is compatible with democracy at all.
Treating shari'a as a personal path is something a bit allien to Muslim tradition, but well, we can hope it will change.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Ancyrean,
It's not like that Islam just defended against pagans under Muhammad and especially later.

True enough, but if we are talking about an inherent nature for violence, I think the process of the spread of Islam can not be a invoked as a definitive proof of any such nature. I refer to and agree with Molly's post above on this.

Ancyrean, what do You think about shari'a?
If the shari'a is considered essential part of a life of a Muslim, not as his personal path, but as a system of law for entire society, and this Muslim believes that it's a will of God to make it a law for entire society, or even just for Muslims, it is in disaccordance with democracy and this is a cause to the question if Islam is compatible with democracy at all.
Treating shari'a as a personal path is something a bit allien to Muslim tradition, but well, we can hope it will change.

Basically sharia is a body of laws governing a Muslim's relations with basically everything: the state, fellow Muslims, non-Muslims, economy, marriage etc. As such, it is for its greater part man made, supposedly taking its clue from the Quran which by itself does not provide for such detailed prescriptions.

So almost all of what is known as Sharia is the result of clerical thinking (throwing in a hadith or two where necessary, which are by themselves often dubious) and thus by no means sacred and inviolable. Unfortunately, for a good deal of the Islamic world, sharia is taken as sacred as the Quran itself, remaining as the cause of many social ills. If you wouldn't think I'm out of my mind, I think from this perspective sharia is unislamic in its promotion of regression.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
True enough, but if we are talking about an inherent nature for violence, I think the process of the spread of Islam can not be a invoked as a definitive proof of any such nature.

Why?
It's not about that Islam can not spread peacefully,
but about that the most eminent persons of Islam, Muhammad himself and the first caliphs, gave an example of a spread of religion by force and especially spread of religion-controlled state by force.
One may ask if Muhammad did that, and surely He did not act in disaccordance with Islam, why can't we do it today?
If Muhammad was wrong at that, acted wrong,
is He reliable as a messanger of God?
And if the spread of religion by sword is accepted by Islam, is it peaceful?
Then, of course, someone may ask if peacefulness is something good at all. If someone drawns, won't we try to get him out of the water, despite his attempts to stop us?
Don't we try to stop people from suicide?

As such, it is for its greater part man made, supposedly taking its clue from the Quran which by itself does not provide for such detailed prescriptions.
Unfortunately, for a good deal of the Islamic world, sharia is taken as sacred as the Quran itself, remaining as the cause of many social ills. If you wouldn't think I'm out of my mind, I think from this perspective sharia is unislamic in its promotion of regression.

I agree with You when it comes to the lack of credibility of shari'a and that Muslims tend to overvalue it.
However, as You've said, many does, including my friend.

When it comes to Molly Bloom... that religions such as Christianity and Islam are expansionist and tend to eliminate various aspects of life of the ones that were present on some ground in some minds before - it's obvious
But it's a difference how the expansion is done.
Early, deceisive for its existance, spread of Christianity did not happen by force, nor with a help of a state by any way - in fact, it had to oppose a powerful state often.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson


Why?
It's not about that Islam can not spread peacefully,
but about that the most eminent persons of Islam, Muhammad himself and the first caliphs, gave an example of a spread of religion by force and especially spread of religion-controlled state by force.
One may ask if Muhammad did that, and surely He did not act in disaccordance with Islam, why can't we do it today?
If Muhammad was wrong at that, acted wrong,
is He reliable as a messanger of God?
And if the spread of religion by sword is accepted by Islam, is it peaceful?
Then, of course, someone may ask if peacefulness is something good at all. If someone drawns, won't we try to get him out of the water, despite his attempts to stop us?
Don't we try to stop people from suicide?

On Muhammed and his early conquests, he was a statesman as well as a prophet, so he had to see heathen Arabs both as theological as well as worldly threats. I don't have access right now to expert opinion on his early conquests and whether his style was to always force the vanquished to accept Islam, but I can tell you that one of the important points in Quran and some hadith attributed to Muhammed is that forcing people to change their religion is un-Islamic.

For example, most of the Arab tribes converted immediately because they saw material benefit (by joining Islam) in the upcoming booty that the ever growing Muslim armies were sure to get from more conquered lands, in and beyond Arabia. Therefore, I doubt if one can so easily conclude that Muhammed was bent on spreading the religion by fear of death, by force to take an example of.

Hence Islamic conquests after Muhammed seldom forced the vanquished to accept the new religion by force. When the Arabs conquered Syria and Mesopotamia, for a long time Christians and Zoroastrians were larger as a proportion of the society, then the numerically few Arab conquerors (IIRC). The same with Ottomans and their Christian holdings in the Balkans (which largely kept its Christian identity intact as a result). Conversions came over time and in conjunction with adapting to new autority, not by sword, by fear of death.

When it comes to Molly Bloom... that religions such as Christianity and Islam are expansionist and tend to eliminate various aspects of life of the ones that were present on some ground in some minds before - it's obvious
But it's a difference how the expansion is done.
Early, deceisive for its existance, spread of Christianity did not happen by force, nor with a help of a state by any way - in fact, it had to oppose a powerful state often.

I believe the persecuted start of Christianity might have in fact induced the later Christianity to be more violent on the non-believers, heathens or monotheists alike, less tolerant on diversity than it would otherwise have been (this point being not with a view to defend a religion by pointing out to another religion).

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
On Muhammed and his early conquests, he was a statesman as well as a prophet, so he had to see heathen Arabs both as theological as well as worldly threats.

I don't think Muslim state (in Madinah) was threatened by anyone...
Meccans perhaps, at least at some time, but in general, the Muslims were the attacking side.

I can tell you that one of the important points in Quran and some hadith attributed to Muhammed is that forcing people to change their religion is un-Islamic.

I recall. And I recall Muhammad honoured bishops from Nagran I think who came to him, and let them pray in their way.
But there are examples to the contrary. Like a pagan female poethe from Madinah Asma bint Marwan who was killed by a Muslim and Muhammad said that it's nothing. Or Kab ibn Zuhayr, a poethe that wrote satires about Muhammad and was due to that threatened with death until He wrote something good about him...
Or pillage raids by Muslim through Arabia...
Or destroying pagan temples by force...
Not to mention the question of Jews of Madinah and Khaybar again

For example, most of the Arab tribes converted immediately because they saw material benefit (by joining Islam) in the upcoming booty that the ever growing Muslim armies were sure to get from more conquered lands, in and beyond Arabia.
Therefore, I doubt if one can so easily conclude that Muhammed was bent on spreading the religion by fear of death, by force to take an example of.

Only after the conquest of entire Arabia did the Muslims get an opportunity to attack what was around it.
Also, You say that growing Muslim armies and its booties attracted other tribes - booties got by attacking who?
What was Muhammad and Muslims making expedictions up to the Roman boarders for, if they were peaceful?
The conquest of Arabia but parts of Higaz was more likely a deed of Abu Bakr than Muhammad in my opinion (the tradition says that the tribes accepted Islam, but separated from it after the prophet's death) - and it was undoubtly a fight, a war, not a peaceful conversion.

Hence Islamic conquests after Muhammed seldom forced the vanquished to accept the new religion by force.

Because they were realists... Also, by forcing the spread of religion I do not mean forcing people to convert (only), but also conquests of Muslim state.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson



Early, deceisive for its existance, spread of Christianity did not happen by force, nor with a help of a state by any way - in fact, it had to oppose a powerful state often.

Which 'state' did it oppose ?

The Roman Empire for a long period tolerated Christianity- to them it was simply just another religion, along with Mithraism, the Cult of Isis, Celtic cults, et cetera.


Once Christinianity established itself as a state religion, it didn't turn the other cheek:

" As late as the year 391 AD, when Christianity was established by law and all other religions bloodily suppressed, the bishop of Hippo had only one church, with a few hundred worshippers, in a town of thirty thousand inhabitants, and that Augustine, who succeeded him, had not a single priest under him. Yet two hundred bishops in Africa about the year 310, yields one hundred thousand Christians. There is no known ratio of bishops and the faithful. "

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0750Constantine.html

[problem_child]

double post.