Islam: A violent religion?

[Yootwopia]

"We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us." - Golda Meir

"The Qur'an, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. I invite readers who haven't read the Qur'an to simply read the book. Take out a highlighter and highlight those lines that counsel the believer to despise infidels, and you will find a book that is just covered with highlighter." - Sam Harris

Yes unfortunately for you, those are opinions, one of which is from Golda Meir.

[Yootwopia]

Jesus is God, God smites plenty of people in Revelations, QED, not to mention the fact that most people see Christianity as OT and NewT together, and the Old Testament has a fair bit of casual violence in it.

Son of God you mean.

Yes but also an integral part of God, like the Holy Spirit.

[Zilam]

Christianity doesn't espouse violence. Show me in any Christian texts where Jesus advocated the use of any violence or force on another human being.

Jesus is God, God smites plenty of people in Revelations, QED, not to mention the fact that most people see Christianity as OT and NewT together, and the Old Testament has a fair bit of casual violence in it.

God eradicating evil(mind you this is after He has been patient enough and has constantly given people chance after chance after chance to repent and turn away from evil. In reality, they know what will happen to evil and CHOOSE to stay the course they are on. Its more their fault than God being a murderer) is hardly the same thing as Muhammad attacking caravans, killing many Jews, and the many poets who didn't like him.

And those people who see the OT on equal at the NT as blind to what the NT explicitly says, which I quoted previously. So that point is really nothing.

[EnragedMaldivians]

The same thing can be said about all [extremist], [jihadist], [terrorist] which call themselves Muslim. They don't follow the Islam doctrine or believed in a perverted version of it.

No. See Mohammad made violence as a viable option by being a moral leader who used violence in many occasions. Jesus on the other hand, as a moral leader spoke peace. If a Muslim wants to be more holy, they follow the example of Mohammad, him being the final and greatest Rasul, just like Christians follow the example of Christ if they want to be more holy. So if a Muslim is following Mohammad's example to try and be a better Muslim, and his example was to use violence in what ever case, doesn't that show that Islam has violence at its core?

To be fair Jesus died quite young. Muhammad lived long enough to rise to the position of a statesman with geo-political decisions to make. His so called Meccan verses, (i.e Ikraafi'dheen; lakhum dheen akum waly'adeen) were quite enlightened.

Innsmothe wrote

I do not hide, I try to inform that there is no agreement between Muslims on what defines the perfect follower of Mohammed and his patron Allah.

You can say that of any religion, because they all have philosophical quibbles even over the most minutae of details. That is why the concept of "mainstream", is a vague, but useful concept.

Arguably, you could point out the major differences between shia and sunni Islam, but even then there is a common theoological frame of reference constituted by a limited number of sources. Where those sources i.e (the Quran), are common, we can criticise the impact that frame of reference has on the worldview and practices of his followers, and refer to the religion monolithically. Just as it is often done with Christianity. I have rarely seen anyone here highlighting the sectoral nuances within Christianity, when it is criticised as a religion, and this fits in with my personal opinion, that racist conservatives are not the only ones who hold double standards when it comes to religion.

Where we want to highlight individual aspects of how Islam is practiced we can then go narrow the scope, for instances the Hijab and Hanbalism; as polygamy is with Mormonism.

[Sorratsin]

Jesus is God, God smites plenty of people in Revelations, QED, not to mention the fact that most people see Christianity as OT and NewT together, and the Old Testament has a fair bit of casual violence in it.

And those people who see the OT on equal at the NT as blind to what the NT explicitly says, which I quoted previously. So that point is really nothing.

Matthew 5:17-20

[Zilam]

To be fair Jesus died quite young. Muhammad lived long enough to rise to the position of a statesman with geo-political decisions to make. His so called Meccan verses, (i.e Ikraafi'dheen; lakhum dheen akum waly'adeen) were quite enlightened.

Sure, there are some good things. I don't discount this. And as a statesmen, Mohammad was quite successful(even if he did manage upon it by chance of marrying a wealthy woman). As a religious leader though, I find him very lacking in what it means to holy.

[Yootwopia]

God eradicating evil(mind you this is after He has been patient enough and has constantly given people chance after chance after chance to repent and turn away from evil.

I dunno, got a pretty long-running theme of Impatient God running from the OT until Revelations as refs supposed evil and the like. Booting people out of Eden for demanding sentience, followed by arbitrarily saving or killing people based on if he was on a period or not at the time (on: Sodom and Gammorah, not: The Prodical Son), ending with the destruction of everything other than 144,000 people who climbed up a hill? A Bit Much.

In reality, they know what will happen to evil and CHOOSE to stay the course they are on. Its more their fault than God being a murderer) is hardly the same thing as Muhammad attacking caravans, killing many Jews, and the many poets who didn't like him.

Disobey the whimsical commandments of God, get killed. Disobey the similar commandments of Mohammed, get killed. You're right, of course...

[Zilam]

And those people who see the OT on equal at the NT as blind to what the NT explicitly says, which I quoted previously. So that point is really nothing.

Matthew 5:17-20

Yes, Jesus fulfilled what the law said to bring about the New Covenant which made the old obsolete(Hebrews . What's your point?

[Primorum Libertorum]

If a "universal agreement" were necessary for using a term, you were not even allowed to use the words "religion", "god" etc. Show me your "universal agreements" for these definitions, and I will come up effortlessly with individuals and groups that disagree with them. You are trying to hide behind criteria that you don't even consider valid yourself.

I do not hide, I try to inform that there is no agreement between Muslims on what defines the perfect follower of Mohammed and his patron Allah.

Authoritarian and especially totalitarian ideologies aim for domination, and their followers are fueled primarily by emotions. It is absurd to expect agreements or rationality from them.

However, when you speak of Muslims, then you obviously have a concept of what a Muslim is. And when you refuse to name it then you are trying to escape providing a definition. Don't blame other (people who call themselves) Muslims for that. Defining a perfect Muslim? You are not even willing to define a nonperfect follower of Mohammed. Hell, you won't even name the very least demands one must meet to call himself a Muslim!

[Sorratsin]

Matthew 5:17-20

Yes, Jesus fulfilled what the law said to bring about the New Covenant which made the old obsolete(Hebrews . What's your point?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets."
'In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law.'

Jesus explicitly says that the OT laws will remain, the idea that the new covenant completely erased the old one entirely depends on how you interpret the word "obsolete".

[Zilam]

God eradicating evil(mind you this is after He has been patient enough and has constantly given people chance after chance after chance to repent and turn away from evil.

I dunno, got a pretty long-running theme of Impatient God running from the OT until Revelations as refs supposed evil and the like. Booting people out of Eden for demanding sentience, followed by arbitrarily saving or killing people based on if he was on a period or not at the time (on: Sodom and Gammorah, not: The Prodical Son), ending with the destruction of everything other than 144,000 people who climbed up a hill? A Bit Much.

1) Would you rather God not punish disobedience? I mean, we could live in a lawless world and let everyone run amuck with no consequences. I think God is above this.
2) The angels destroyed Sodom and Gommorah because they citizens were hostile and by the language used were wanting to kill the angels (as opposed to the popular idea that they wanted to gang bang the angels)
3) Me thinks you read the book of Revelation as literal. 144,000 = symbolic number of God's chosen. So to say that 144,000 are saved is to say the the elect in Christ are saved from destruction, which goes along with the general theme of scripture
4) God didn't kick out Adam and Eve for eating from the tree, it was because he didn't want them to eat from the tree of eternal life with the knowledge of evil in their system. They could have been eternal harbingers of doom and gloom were that the case. Then again, I suppose God could have just destroyed them anyways, being God and all.

Disobey the whimsical commandments of God, get killed. Disobey the similar commandments of Mohammed, get killed. You're right, of course...

When you stupidfy(yes, I made a word up just for this special case) arguments to try to make an argument, it really makes you look intellectually dishonest, you know. Its not that people are just disobeying God's commands to live right. They are rejecting him completely. So he kind of has this idea of "Well, if you want to reject me and all these awesome rewards I have for you in the after life, then fine you can live eternally apart from me" Makes sense to me.

Mo-mo killed people because the simply disagreed with him. I can disagree with God and not have my head chopped off. I've done it plenty, trust me.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Yes, Jesus fulfilled what the law said to bring about the New Covenant which made the old obsolete(Hebrews . What's your point?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets."
'In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law.'

Jesus explicitly says that the OT laws will remain, the idea that the new covenant completely erased the old one entirely depends on how you interpret the word "obsolete".

What is it with the consistant et tu fallacy. Granted that violent can be argued to be a relative term, and we can thus compare it to another religion to see its position on a spectrum.

However, Christianity and Judaism are not the only available alternatives to Islam; and the fact that Islam is heavily influenced by the OT makes it a rather futile line of arguement. "It is just as violent as its violent and very similar philosophical antecedent". What is the point made exactly?

Is it not possible to judge an individual religion on its own merits, with reference to what our own value criteria? (for instance regarding violence is)? Narrowing the scope to its individual schools of thought if you want to be anal about it.

[Jahada]

It depends how you interpret it.

If you're colorblind, you can claim the sky is gray all you want, but it's still blue.

It does not rely on your interpretation. First of all, it is crucial to understand that the Quran is not like the Bible. The Quran is not a book of stories and accounts. The Quran is a dialogue in which God was telling Muhammad and the Muslims what to do under certain circumstances. It's only half the story. The other half is in the history books.

For example, people attacking Islam often quote parts of the Quran that say something along the lines of "kill the nonbelievers". If they bothered doing any objective research, they'd find out the Muslims were being persecuted and eventually exiled by their pagan counterparts. But you'd have to look long and hard to find that information in the Quran. (It actually is in there, but only in a handful of verses.)

So, as stated above, the Quran is half the story. If you fill in the other half with your own ideas, then you'd be fabricating your own interpretation of Islam in the process. For example, if, on the other side of the "kill the nonbelievers" verse, you ignorantly painted an image of peaceful nice non-Muslims who weren't doing anything to the Muslims, you would naturally lead yourself to believe that Islam is violent.

But the fact is, you can't change history. It doesn't matter what you think happened, or what you think the verses mean. What matters is the truth. Anyone who attempts to use Islam to kill innocent people is simply an uneducated, ignorant fool.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Jahada
If you're colorblind, you can claim the sky is gray all you want, but it's still blue.

Actually color really is a completely subjective experience. There is no color outside of the mind.

Secondly; the point is not that an objective truth pertaining to the intentions of the authors of these scirptures interpretations does not exist, but rather that what that objective truth is, is a matter of dispute, and cannot be demonstrated as easily as say, a mathematical equation. You are left with insisting that your interpretation of Islam is true, and others are un-Islamic. A Saudi Scholar could likewise claim that his understanding of theology is more rigorous than yours. I might not like them but they are not idiots.

But the fact is, you can't change history. It doesn't matter what you think happened, or what you think the verses mean. What matters is the truth. Anyone who attempts to use Islam to kill innocent people is simply an uneducated, ignorant fool.

Does this extend to homosexuals and unmarried persons who consent to have sexual relations? Violence is not limited to geo-political aggression and terrorism.

Oh wait I remember. You don't like arguing that one. Not killing them would be like trying to convince you to eat pork, because homosexuality is a bad thing and should be punished.

Not that I've ever met one, but I don't like there chances under "reasonable" sharia law.

[Los Cabreddes]

The Koran [Which I read some of in an English translation] is filled with passages about nonviolence towards both Muslims and non-Muslims. It does justify war in some cases, but condemns the killing of innocents. While Koran talks about the Muhammad's jihad against his enemies in Mecca, Muhammad told told his follows that the most important jihad was the one fought inside for his soul. The fact that Muslims have killed in rage and said that they were doing it for God doesn't make Islam an entirely bad religion does it? People have long used religion as a justification for violent acts. Is Islam violent?

Not in the sense that some think. Islam also tends to discourage forgiving past grievences, allowing yourself to be dishonored, and allowing oppression and oppressors under any condition. While its desire for justice is very admirable, that does create a kind of violence. Does it have to be terrorism however? No. The Old West had the same kind of violent mentality and never engaged in such.

[Mosasauria]

No more violent than any form of philosophy. I don't see the average day Muslim blowing up things because the Koran told them to.
Another thing:
Is your statement of "I read the Koran" just taking a bunch of quotes that catch your eye, and putting them out of contexet?

[Primorum Libertorum]

Christianity doesn't espouse violence. Show me in any Christian texts where Jesus advocated the use of any violence or force on another human being.

Christianity adores violence. By the way, it is interesting that you explicitly focus on Jesus. While he is also a violent and hateful person, I wonder: Why are you ruling out the rest of the Bible?

But racism and religion are two different things.

That depends on the aspect. I could just as well flip your next sentence around: "The message of religions is that some people are better than others because of their "right" beliefs whereas racist ideologies focus on serving a loving and peaceful community."

but saying all religion is the same as racism

I'm not saying that, on the contrary. I addressed the argument "When some people do something bad because of an ideology then the people are to accuse, not the entire ideology". And that is plain wrong. You can very well condemn racism as an ideology, and anyone defending it by "Uh, that is to general, there are many different kinds of racists, and only a few of them actually go out and lynch Negroes. Please differ!" completely misses the point, deliberately or not. I am saying Racism is Racism. And Islam is Islam. Racism is not "all ideology", and Islam is not "all religion".

I will say that not all religions have good philosophys, and I am not defending those that are based on violence and hate. But since this topic is about Islam, I wanted to defend it since I am to understand it is supposed to be peaceful.

Pretty much all ideologies are peaceful towards their followers. We used to have a youth organization in Germany until 2009 that organized a lot of activities for children. They held tent camps, wandered, baked cookies, sang and dance...sounds lovely, doesn't it? Well, unfortunately it was also a national socialistic union that indoctrinated the kids. Is that a contradiction? Of course not. National socialists are not demons from Hell. Why should they not be loving parents and show great companionship?

It is always the attitude towards dissidents that is interesting. If you want to know anything about an ideology - be it religious, be it political - then skip the wonderful illustrations of how they treat each other and look instead at how they treat Atheists, Wiccans, Homosexuals and Transgenders, to name just a few. That's where it gets interesting!

[Newtypingland]

Not a violent religion per say, though it certainly is puzzling as to why so many of it's adherents use violence as a means to express themselves.

[Jahada]

what that objective truth is, is a matter of dispute

The truth can be found in many places. Muhammad's life is historically documented.

You are left with insisting that your interpretation of Islam is true, and others are un-Islamic. A Saudi Scholar could likewise claim that his understanding of theology is more rigorous than yours. I might not like them but they are not idiots.

I'm not saying there isn't room for interpretation in some areas. There are some parts of Islam I don't understand completely. But violence against innocent people is clearly not allowed, and anyone who knows Islam and its history will know this. It's not my interpretation. It's fact. There's no room for interpretation there. So if someone uses Islam to justify baseless violence, then they are an idiot.

Does this extend to homosexuals and unmarried persons who consent to have sexual relations? Violence is not limited to geo-political aggression and terrorism.

Being a homosexual isn't a reason to be punished. In Islam, one can only be punished for acting engaging in an act of homosexuality.

As for fornication, I happen to agree that it is wrong and should be punishable.

because homosexuality is a bad thing and should be punished.

See above.

[Mosasauria]

Not a violent religion per say, though it certainly is puzzling as to why so many of it's adherents use violence as a means to express themselves.

That is universal among mankind. Humans tend to use violence quite a bit when things get rough(Or at leats from their point of view).

[Newtypingland]

Not a violent religion per say, though it certainly is puzzling as to why so many of it's adherents use violence as a means to express themselves.

That is universal among mankind. Humans tend to use violence quite a bit when things get rough(Or at leats from their point of view).

True enough, but less so in the Modern era in regards to Christianity. Islam has far more adherents willing to use violence, however.

[Jahada]

Islam has far more adherents willing to use violence, however.

I wouldn't technically call them "adherents" in that case...

[Primorum Libertorum]

No more violent than any form of philosophy. I don't see the average day Muslim blowing up things because the Koran told them to.

I also don't see the "average day racist" murdering people of different colors, and they don't even have one special book which tells them to do so. Does that mean that racism is "no more violent than any form of philosophy", like pacifism?

Your standard seems to be "All followers of an ideology must be actively murdering people in order to call that ideology violent", and that a conveniently unrealistic demand.

[Mosasauria]

No more violent than any form of philosophy. I don't see the average day Muslim blowing up things because the Koran told them to.

I also don't see the "average day racist" murdering people of different colors, and they don't even have one special book which tells them to do so. Does that mean that racism is "no more violent than any form of philosophy", like pacifism?

Your standard seems to be "All followers of an ideology must be actively murdering people in order to call that ideology violent", and that a conveniently unrealistic demand.

How is it unrealistic? I don't call any ideology violent because it is not my place to do so.

[Jahada]

Islam also tends to discourage forgiving past grievences, allowing yourself to be dishonored, and allowing oppression and oppressors under any condition.

All of this is true except for the first sentences. Forgiveness is an important concept in Islam. The Quran even says "God will show no mercy to those who show no mercy to others."