Peaceful Islam?

[Ned]

Saint Marcus, What we are trying to do in this thread is to identify the problem so that we can know how to solve it, if it can be solved at all. Simply labelling OBL evil or a terrorist or a fundamentalist will not help solve the problem of the current war if the problem is Islam itself.

I think GePap hit the nail on the head. Islam is universal and therefor expansionist. It teaches the unification of church and state. It teaches expansion of the religion by war and forced submission/conversion.

Christianity, in contrast, separates church and state, so that expansion of the religion by war is not part of church doctrine, although it is part of church history.

OBL appears to be the voice of Islam. The vast majority of Islam's clerics probably believe in what he is saying and doing.

[gsmoove23]

Where does Christianity separate church and state in the Bible, that isn't contradicted by a number of other passages?

[Az]

well, in the bible there is no mentioning of state, at least for christians.

[Kropotkin]

The separation of church and state is as far as I understand it mainly the result of the history of the church during the roman and dark ages, as much of it is really is.

[Saint Marcus]

OBL appears to be the voice of Islam. The vast majority of Islams cleric probably believe in what he is saying and doing.

in the past, the same was said in christian europe about the crusades (or what was done against American natives in name of christianity). Yet, we christians overcame that after a long time. Religions change over time, even you must know that.

[Saint Marcus]

in Christianity, kings (leaders) should rule in the name of God. Jesus is called the King of Kings, and all (human) kings should rule their lands the way God wants it. Not really a seperation of church and state.

On the other hand, the Bible does say: "give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and God what belongs to God."

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by GePap
Wernazuma:

Since Islam has no hierarchy, no struture, I find it impossible to say that as a relegion it can be hijacked, any more than Protestanism can be. As interpretation is left to each individual, for anyone to claim that as a whole the relegion has been hijcked, they must in some way think they 'know' the beliefs of 1 billion plus people. That is impossible.

That's exactly what I'm saying, isn't it? Except for the point that Islam does have a hierarchy in Shiite thought and knows people with "superior" credibility and "religious knowledge" (kadis etc.) in the sunnite schools.

As for the Q'uran: it was finished by 1000 AD. Is Islam's history more, less, or about, as violent as that of all the other major relegions? Are the followers of Islam more or violent than others?

Generally I'd say it was equally violent throughout its history on an average scale. As I've said: In a good situation it will be very difficult to fanaticise people even with a religion that orders its community to aim for world dominance and in bad situations even people with a religion with rather peaceful hermeneutics can get the idea of a holy or just war (an example: the Kalachakra of Tibetan Buddhists).

But yes, I'd say that the real followers of Islam, those who take it serious and try to live the word are much more violent than Buddhistic monks. Why? Because the Quran focusses much on how unjust, cruel, treacherous and sinful the unbelievers are and because the community is given priority (this they have in common with Christians). The Buddhist monk will concentrate on his personal enlightenment rather than that of the community which is the main issue of Buddhism. Now, not the Buddhist ruler will be necessarily so much more peaceful than an islamic ruler, but those who try to live it authentically, yes.

This may be a difficualt question to answer, but as far as I know, the biggest recorded bloodlettings in the last 1000 years have not been committed By Muslims in the name of Islam, while one, the extermination of the Native Americans, was done in large part in the name of Christianity. So perhaps the interpreters of the Q'uran were more mellow than many of the interpreters of The BIble.

Look, I don't want to get into a colonialism debate here, I've done that too often. I'm not a Christian but an atheist or agnostic, but that's not the matter here. Can you please tell me what the crimes of Christians in America have to do with the peacefulness or violence of Islam? I don't get it, it's completely unrelated. How can you try to apologize the crimes of one group by pointing on the worse crimes of another? Is the murder of 1/2 million Tutsi in Rwanda relativated just because the Germans massacred more Jews?

Islam is in the middle. It is seen as a universal lesson that applies to all but it does deal more with how temporal power should be as well. So, it is easier to interpret Islam in a way that leads to a political ideology, with theories about how the state should work, than it is with Christianity or Buddhism.

Right, the Islam can dig in the Quran to find guidelines for political behaviour and has the example of the prophet's life who happens to be the only major religion-founder who was the head of a political community. Christianity had to go a long interpretative way in order to get to the principles of the postconstantine church.

So, for me, any greater propensity by one faith other another for violence in the modern world has to do with the relation of Theology to Temporal ideology than it does with anyting else. What is most sorely lacking in the islamic world is a viable non-Islamist political ideology that has brought benefits to the people, and allows them to see their faith and their politics as seperate. It is the fact that the political systems of the islamic world have failed over the last 50 years that cerates an opening for islamist politics to enter the fray. You see this in nigeria. Islam in Nigeria is getting more political with time. It is not a reaction, but a revolution driven by the failures of Nigerian governments in the past. The same was true in Iran under the Shah.

So true.

[GePap]

Ned:

I must say that I don't think Islamic scripture demands expansion by war. Again, to me it is a political, not cultural/relegious issue. The five pilars of Islam do ask for more of a follower than Chirtianity. Simply to make things easier for followers to follow all five pillars demands more attention from Temporal leaders than Chritianity does, such as trying to make it easier to make the pilgramage to Mecca, or how to distribute the alms given to the poor. So, whgile Islam lacks a centralized hierarchy, it does speak more about how a City of God, a place where Islam and Muslims can flourish, cn and should be established on earth.

This is what I see with Sharia Law. The Bible has laws as well, but once the Jewish kingdom was destroyed, they no longer had power and over time rabbinical Judaism came into being, as oposed to temple Judaism, that in theory would still use the laws passed on by Moses. IN Christianity, since many chirstians were ex-pagans, and the spread of Christianity after Constatine was mixed with Imperial Rome and its system, the laws of Moses for the most part were ignored, and what we got was amix of ex-germanic and Roman laws and systems. In Islam, you did have a grafting of islamic law with the pagan ways of the past: aftre all, Islam is actually, as far as scriputre goes, liberal towards women, but the pre-Islamic tradition in those lands Islam took were very ant-women, and when trying to turn a bunch of people to your relegion, some amount of synthasis, not just imposition, is necessary. So what one gets is Islamic law mixed with lder mores, specially about the sexes. Now, since for most of its history Islamic areas were ruled by states that defibed themselves as Islamic and nothing else, the tie of islam to poltiics did not sdee the same weakening as it did in Europe due to 'rational' systems in the 17th and 18th centuries. So the conection of islam and politics remained strong.

NOw, therse secularising systems did arrive in the islamic world through European colonialism, or local sattes trying to compete and survive. The problem is that they failed to imporve the situastion as much as they promised, so a new radical revolutionary brand of Political islam ahs risen, but, this is key to understand what I mean:


Modern Political Islam is a modern political ideology only partly shaped by scripture but also infused with modern notions of politics like nationalism and so forth. Men like Osama bin Laden my state that all they care about is the Quran, but they are as modern as you or I. The issue then is not one of anceint religion, but of modern political ideology. Islam then is not naturally violent: it simply has a higher propensity to be politicizedthen other universalistic religions

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ned
I think GePap hit the nail on the head. Islam is universal and therefor expansionist. It teaches the unification of church and state. It teaches expansion of the religion by war and forced submission/conversion.

That's not completely correct. Islam knows no "church", they don't seperate RELIGION and state, which is different. Not a religious institution with political power, but rulers with an obligation to be in accordance with religion (i.e. ANY of the schools of Islamic thought or even a mixture of them) And forced submission yes, forced conversion only partially, especially in the case of Christians and Jews, as they can sign the Dimma-treaty, which means a very limited tolerance (the Hanafites and Malikites give this possibility also to pagans)

[Kropotkin]

As I glanced at GePaps avatar I can to think of a side note. Doesn't the Iranian government accept the existance and culture of the zoastrians nowasays? Not that they are many of them around but still...

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


That's mostly true gsmoove.
I never said that Islam cannot possibly change nor that those 4 schools are somehow homogenous. The Hanafites are generally quite liberal compared to the others and Islam can even live in (a certain) coexistance with pagans if it comes to them. But that doesn't mean that their interpretations are compatible with modern concepts of pluralism, it's still preenlightened literal interpretation of the Quran.
I hope some day, Islamic trendsetters will be able to make a difference between "historical contextual" parts of the Quran (say, "kill the pagans"), and a "eternal metaphysical truth" ("All men are created equal, "help the poor" ) of the Quran.

Yet, it hasn't happened even on a moderate scale. I hope it will. Yet, I can't accept that the "literal" interpretations are being viewed by some people as "perverting Islam". I think Muhammad meant what he wrote more likely in a literal way...

Large numbers of Islamic people manage to live and peacefully coexist even, in Europe, the US and all over the world. Peaceful communities even exist in China as I've just recently been told. There are a large number of people on your front doorstep willing to prove you wrong yet you go to 3rd world countries, a category known for violence, (for reasons we can argue about in another thread) to prove your point. There is a significant difference between the Islam of the 1st world and the Islam of the 3rd. Too bad the latter is the only one that gets the press.

I don't argue that there are a number of European muslims who have been implicated in attacks or planned attacks but it is comparatively small and if OBL had a real voice among european and american muslims today we would be in a much worse position then we already are.

[GePap]

Iran does allow for other relegious groups to exist and survive, as long as they don't prosalitize, which has been a general rule against relgious minorities in Muslims states since ever.

Wernazuma:

You are right about Islamist and Islamic treatment of other religious groups. They don't dop masse conversiona, and I wasn't speaking about a marriage of state and church, as you are correct that there isn't one. To repeat my point on the issue of Political islam:

Modern Political Islam is a modern political ideology only partly shaped by scripture but also infused with modern notions of politics like nationalism and so forth. Men like Osama bin Laden my state that all they care about is the Quran, but they are as modern as you or I. The issue then is not one of anceint religion, but of modern political ideology. Islam then is not naturally violent: it simply has a higher propensity to be politicizedthen other universalistic religions

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


That's not completely correct. Islam knows no "church", they don't seperate RELIGION and state, which is different. Not a religious institution with political power, but rulers with an obligation to be in accordance with religion (i.e. ANY of the schools of Islamic thought or even a mixture of them) And forced submission yes, forced conversion only partially, especially in the case of Christians and Jews, as they can sign the Dimma-treaty, which means a very limited tolerance (the Hanafites and Malikites give this possibility also to pagans)

If the ruler has to follow Islamic law and the Koran, then he has to slay the unbelievers who do not submit or convert because this is Islamic law and the injunction of the Koran. Not so? While it is clearly possible to be a Christian or a Jew in an Islamic country, you still do not have full rights and have to pay higher tithes. A ruler who brings in Western culture and laws, or who does not discriminate against the Christian or Jew, is violating Islamic law. This is why the Shah was deposed and why OBL is after the Saudi royal family.

It is also clear why Israel is such an affront to Islam.

[Wernazuma III]

Well, Israel is mainly an affront because they're "chasing the muslims from their homes" as is written in the Quran being a sin which can only result in death.
But other than that, I must say again, that Islam can not be limited to a religion which does not do anything but violently expanding. Many islamic thinkers (especially among Hanafites and Malikites) have interpreted the "slay all unbelievers" teachings to be directed towards the pagans of Mekka who had Muhammad go into exile. This implies a) that this duty is limited to Arab pagans or even to Mekkan pagans and b) only against those who attack the Islam first.
No one obliges Muslims to continuously fight against non-believers if they aren't attacked - on the other hand it's not a sin either...


About the islamic territory though you're more or less right. Within an islamic country, dhimmis have very limited rights, apostates have to be killed. And Muslim rulers who act against the Sharia are apostates and enemies of the faith basically. But I have to correct you in one thing: When it somes to discriminating Jews and Christians, the Wahabite Sauds are VERY orthodox...

[Saint Marcus]

If the ruler has to follow Islamic law and the Koran, then he has to slay the unbelievers who do not submit or convert because this is Islamic law and the injunction of the Koran. Not so? While it is clearly possible to be a Christian or a Jew in an Islamic country, you still do not have full rights and have to pay higher tithes. A ruler who brings in Western culture and laws, or who does not discriminate against the Christian or Jew, is violating Islamic law. This is why the Shah was deposed and why OBL is after the Saudi royal family.

You can say the same about christianity.