Islam: A violent religion?

[Cerod]

Oh god! What is with this hate on Islam????? Cut it out

It;s quite a decent debate actually.

Thank god

[Bundabunda]

In my very humble opinion, most religions have had at one point or another a "violent streak." In the same veil, the truly faithful tend to be peaceful. Though curtain passages of religious text can be cited to suggest a violent group. These excerpts are almost always found after explanations of non-violent means to resolve problems the violent action being a last resort.
Peace

[Miasto Lodz]

I'm guilty of being eurocentric. /me whips himself with sevenhooked whip

The Balkans are in Europe. What you're being is ignorant and/or forgetful.

First of all I find the Yugoslavian problem solved, or at least swept under the rug.
Secondly imho the war was about the Slobo's influences, not the religion.
I've traveled through Yugoslavia with my parents twice (july 1989, may 1990) spending there few weeks and we couldn't feel literally any tension, the religious one in particular. Our friends from Slavonski Brod when asked what's going on they cursed the hyperinflation and the economy in general. No word about the religion or nationalism.
As we hosted them later in Poland, when they had to leave their town, we talked a lot. They told us what was going on. It was all about politics, not the orthodox church on every corner.

[Bundabunda]

The Balkans are in Europe. What you're being is ignorant and/or forgetful.

First of all I find the Yugoslavian problem solved, or at least swept under the rug.

I do believe that is not an equal alternative to solving a problem.
Peace

[Zilam]

Islam was spread partially on violence. Modern day Islam? Not as violent as it could be, considering its past.

[Innsmothe]

Islam was spread partially on violence. Modern day Islam? Not as violent as it could be, considering its past.

It was also largely spread by traders.

[Zilam]

Islam was spread partially on violence. Modern day Islam? Not as violent as it could be, considering its past.

It was also largely spread by traders.

Hence why I said "partially". However, history does show that war and conquest were a big part of the rise of Islam. I might be too generous in saying partially. Maybe mostly is more accurate. Either way, it doesn't matter! That is in the past. It is up to Muslims now on where their religion goes. Do they ignore the violent history and pray for a non-violent future? Or do they hold on to the past and continue to have a cycle of violence associated with their religion?

[The Truth and Light]

As a religion, Islam is violent, as are pretty much every religion on the Earth. But Muslilms themself are not automatically violent, that depends on the person. I will say however, that as a modern religion, Islam seems to encourage more violence than others.

[Wiztopia]

It was also largely spread by traders.

Hence why I said "partially". However, history does show that war and conquest were a big part of the rise of Islam. I might be too generous in saying partially. Maybe mostly is more accurate. Either way, it doesn't matter! That is in the past. It is up to Muslims now on where their religion goes. Do they ignore the violent history and pray for a non-violent future? Or do they hold on to the past and continue to have a cycle of violence associated with their religion?

I guess war doesn't really matter in something like this. Almost all religions have been involved in bloody wars. The thing that people think of when it comes to violence and Islam are the terrorists. And maybe to a lesser point their treatment of women.

[Anthonlandia]

It is very violent. I have read the quran many times and the hadiths. It is the most violent religion in the world. The quran actually openly calls for the deaths of the "infidels" (yes that is the actual word used in the quran) many times.

[Globexanter]

Maybe a poll?

[The Truth and Light]

Islam was spread partially on violence. Modern day Islam? Not as violent as it could be, considering its past.

Partially? Islam's entire conquest of the middle east was a war. They're still trying to spread through violence.

[Redzon]

Is Islam violent? Certainly not.

The values of a religion means nothing if the people who preached it, and the people who believe it do not put what they're taught into practice.

[Andaricus]

Is islam a violent, evil religion. Uh yeah of course it is. Can't really say any other religion is much better but if I was to pick the worst of them it would have to be islam.

[Redzon]

I feel your closing question lacks the elaboration which could have made this thread far better.

Indeed, but I guess trying to learn more Islam before asking these questions would be better as well. I wonder, what is it with islamophobia.

[Redzon]

Islam was spread partially on violence. Modern day Islam? Not as violent as it could be, considering its past.

Though not as brutal compared to the Crusader's "No booty, no prisoner!" motto during the ancient medieval war against the Muslims.

[Primorum Libertorum]

Since Islam is supposed to be decentralised and 'open to interpretation', Islam can hardly be defined by the 'values' people claim it has, as the passages mean different things to different people.

Islam is anything but "supposed to be decentralised and 'open to interpretation'". But that is irrelevant. If it is so undefinable, then it is also impossible to claim that calling it violent would be a generalization

Criticizing a monolithic framework or presentation of Islam isn't "No true Scotsman".

Yes it is. One has to have a definition of that term in mind, otherwise it would be nonsensical to use it. Now people use to have a "flexible" concept of ideologies that boils down to "If it is about something favorable, then my favorite ideology and its members are united. If it is about something that makes it look bad, then there are so many fractions that nothing can be said about the ideology in general". That is only a very slight variation of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Well, I just turn it around, as I said. It puts these people into the dilemma I described: Giving up their double-standards would make them vulnerable to criticism, but keeping them up makes it impossible for them to retort.

[Vecherd]

Short answer: Yes with a but.
Long answer: No with a maybe.

Please explain your long answer to us. Enlighten me.

It depends on how deep the Islamic fundamentalism sticks into the religion of a certain area.

[Volnotova]

While you may argue the ideology it self is not violent(Semantics, blah blah).

The Islam does advocate violence.

[Zilam]

Islam was spread partially on violence. Modern day Islam? Not as violent as it could be, considering its past.

Partially? Islam's entire conquest of the middle east was a war. They're still trying to spread through violence.

Yes, but elsewhere it was spread more peacefully, such as, as one poster mentioned, trade. Trading isn't violent, now is it?

[Redzon]

What is it with the West and Islam? Enlighten me.

[Wiztopia]

Partially? Islam's entire conquest of the middle east was a war. They're still trying to spread through violence.

Yes, but elsewhere it was spread more peacefully, such as, as one poster mentioned, trade. Trading isn't violent, now is it?

Sure it is. You trade weapons for money then shoot the weapons dealers so they can't rat you out.

[Hiaku]

Islam ran over my dog once. I tried to take the license plate number, but apparently anthropomorphic personifications of religions have the forethought to take their plates off before they go joyriding.

Sigged

[Great Nepal]

No religion is violent on itself. Extremist hiding behind religious books could be violent.

For all I care, I could form a self-proclaimed Buddha blessed group and go to commit terrorist strikes claiming "to be spreading the teaching of Buddhism to misguided people - to bring them to light of god" and saying I am doing it all "to ensure eternal peace in world".

[Innsmothe]

Since Islam is supposed to be decentralised and 'open to interpretation', Islam can hardly be defined by the 'values' people claim it has, as the passages mean different things to different people.

Islam is anything but "supposed to be decentralised and 'open to interpretation'". But that is irrelevant. If it is so undefinable, then it is also impossible to claim that calling it violent would be a generalization

Criticizing a monolithic framework or presentation of Islam isn't "No true Scotsman".

Yes it is. One has to have a definition of that term in mind, otherwise it would be nonsensical to use it. Now people use to have a "flexible" concept of ideologies that boils down to "If it is about something favorable, then my favorite ideology and its members are united. If it is about something that makes it look bad, then there are so many fractions that nothing can be said about the ideology in general". That is only a very slight variation of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Well, I just turn it around, as I said. It puts these people into the dilemma I described: Giving up their double-standards would make them vulnerable to criticism, but keeping them up makes it impossible for them to retort.

You are quite ignorant.
There are competing schools of Islam, all have one point of agreement.

The book is flexible.