Islam as religion of peace

[Rex Little]

Interesting. A thread about the fundamental nature of Islam, and you have to wade through four pages before you find a quote from the Qu'ran.

So far, every quote given supports the notion that Islam is basically warlike; those arguing the opposite position are reduced to muttering about "context". Can anyone provide an actual Qu'ran passage which bolsters the opinion that Islam is a religion of peace? (That's not a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know.)

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm an atheist, and most of my overwhelmingly Islamic family doesn't hold anything against me (or my sister who's also an atheist, for that matter).

Ramo:
Kudos to your folks.

I know many, many very tolerant Moslems. I really don't know where y'all are coming up with this... There's absolutely nothing inherently violent about Moslems.

Inherently warlike? Not at all. Arabs are not generally more warlike than Europeans, it is a question of what the religion teaches.

And I apologise for the lack of quotes from the Q'uran. Does anyone know of a good online source?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ramo


I'm an atheist, and most of my overwhelmingly Islamic family doesn't hold anything against me (or my sister who's also an atheist, for that matter).

I know many, many very tolerant Moslems. I really don't know where y'all are coming up with this... There's absolutely nothing inherently violent about Moslems. At least, no more so than there's anything inherently violent about Christians.

I know tolerant muslims too, but if you're atheist and they like you, from a islamic theological perspective your family is already traitors. You'd be a "murtadd", which is, according to Muhammad, the worst crime of all, jihad against them is a demand.
2 hadith /words of the prophet say: "He who changes his religion has to be killed." "The blood of a muslim is free only in 3 occasions: When falling of the faith, betraying his wife and after a murder that has not been a blood feud." (translated by myself)

And that's not out of context, those hadith stand for themselves and I could quote the whole Sura 9 again, which is not some short line "out of context".

I'm not so sure about this seperation. I do believe that Islam teaches that it is okay to forcibly convert unbelievers to Islam.

Well, that, for once, is not true for Christians and Jews. Those groups can always surrender and accept the "dimma"-treaty, allowing them a limited freedom of sticking to their religion with all the nasty stuff, but anyway. And muslims HAVE TO accept such a surrender.
And you misunderstand for the pagans: It's not forcibly converting, it's only that those who don't voluntarily convert can be killed.

[gsmoove23]

How do trolls like this go 7 pages with, as Rex Little already said, only one or two selective quotes from the Koran. I see some people trying to use hadiths when in all cases the words of the Koran supercede hadith when they conflict. I see some arguements that religious discussion has frozen in Islam that completely ignore the large numbers of Islamic scholars who teach a peaceful interpretation of the Koran and yet for some reason don't make the news.

I've just been reading an interesting book called "Drinking the Sea at Gaza" by Amira Haas. It might be a little left leaning for all you hardliners but I think its valuable to anyone interested in learning anything about the palestinians. It talks about the struggles between Fatah and Hamas and points out how in the harder times when there is little hope the more violent passages of the Koran are bandied about, Hamas gains in support and the opinions of the people swing toward more fundamental interpretation.

Interpretation of religious text fits the times and in most places where fundamentalism is very strong the times are quite hard. This is true in the ME but you'd find in prosperous western countries muslim communities generally follow a far more liberal line of interpretation.

Generally these goofy anti-Islam arguements rely on the premise "what I see must be true". The majority of the groups on the US list of terrorist organizations are Islamic or at least come from Islamic countries so 1+1=2 but of course this couldn't possibly have anything to do with external events. No that would make things a little more difficult.

Of course if you start showing how through history the assumption that Islam is a violent religion turns out not to be true when compared to other religions then you're just trying to divert the issue from where it should be, muslim bashing. May I ask how you come to the conclusion that Islam is inherently violent. The only way you could is by showing it is relatively more violent then most other religions. The only way you could refute the claim is by showing it is equally as or less violent then other religions. Otherwise you would just make a thread on how religions in general are inherently violent.

[yavoon]

kind of a moot point tho eh gs? from what i gather the question is not what % of ppl interpret it this way, or wut % interpret it that way. since at all times religion has been treated as utterly maleable and convenient.

but what is actually contained in it. regardless of the peacenicks or the warmongers.

[gsmoove23]

The point is it doesn't matter what is contained in it. Apologists for christianity like to point at JC and say "see thats our religion" when in fact he makes it quite clear that he follows the OT and still holds to its laws. Do you even want to get into what the OT actually contains?

[yavoon]

of course it matters, just not to ppl who are intellectually dishonest.

which contains a large part of high level religious ppl, all under the guise of faith.

[gsmoove23]

Help me out here are you trying to help me or hurt me?

Intellectual dishonesty or very pious learned people who make the most of what they like in religious text and diminish what is inconvenient there is little difference. This happens alot, done by well meaning people when trying to address worldly problems with religious scripture. If they prefer violent action they go to text seeming to support violent action and the same for pacifists. Its a natural tendency and all religions with sacred text have passages that would seem to support both peaceful and violent action.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Rex Little
Interesting. A thread about the fundamental nature of Islam, and you have to wade through four pages before you find a quote from the Qu'ran.

So far, every quote given supports the notion that Islam is basically warlike; those arguing the opposite position are reduced to muttering about "context". Can anyone provide an actual Qu'ran passage which bolsters the opinion that Islam is a religion of peace? (That's not a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know.)

OK, let me answer this, so no one tells me I'm all biased.

1.)One of the arguments is that some hadith are very directly condemning any unlawful act against the dimmi, the "protected" jews and christians (and even pagans according to hanafites): "What you do to one of the dimmi, you're doing to me." Of course, "lawful" acts against dimmi include a variety of acts we would call "unjust" or repressive.
But in this still lies the potential to move ahead, but it only works, when the conditions of the Dimma-treaties, as they are in islamic tradition, could be changed. This is a hard task but who knows, one day it works, because the exact terms of the treaty are not from Muhammad himself but later by the first 4 "righteous caliphs".

2.) The always used quran quote to show islamic tolerance is Quran 2,256 that says: "There's no force in faith."
Well, if one thing is out of context then this and there's nothing that justifies that this verse should make all the aggressive verses obsolete. It's rather the subsummation of what Muhammad experienced during his life: You can't force someone to BELIEVE from within, with his whole heart not even by pressure, but it doesn't say that you're free to choose your confession or free to criticize Islam...
But a consequence of this is that Islam focusses more on "Orthopraxis" than "Orthodoxy" - there's hardly been anything comparable to Inquisition in Islam because no one cared whether INSIDE you're firm in faith - no one can be forced and God will judge. Yet you had not to endanger the faith of the others and thus everybody is obligued to do all necessary muslim acts. Say the Shahada, most importantly keeping the Ramadan etc. But whether you believe or not, whether you know much of the Quran or not didn't matter - that made some kind of tolerance possible where only the shell had to be muslim, spoil the rest.

3.) Q 29,46: "Don't argue with the jews and Christians if not in the best way. Except with those who are unjust."
"the best way" obviously means by preaching and talking, not with force. But the clue is "except those..." - What means "unjust" - this opens all possibilities of interpretation. Fact is that in the earlier sures of the Mecca period, Muhammad thought of the Christians and jews of being "natural monotheistic allies against the pagans who would sooner or later accept him as prophet but of course he got disappointed, as also expresses the mentioned verse 2, 256. So, there's some more friendly verses on Christians and Jews and some more aggressive, putting them very closely to the pagans. The aggressive become more and more in the later parts of the Quran and in case of doubt, this is a general islamic rule, "younger" verses beat "older" ones when they contradict each other - and the second last sure speaks of Nazarenes "being the most friendly" towards muslims and "jews and pagans are the worst enemies"...

But just because christians in Islam are somehow preferred non-believers, this doesn't change anything about the relation to the pagans. This relation, read through the whole Quran, seems to be nothing but a total war "fight them (the pagans) alltogether as they fight you alltogether..."
The few modern and tolerant interpretations acknowledge that this total war only was meant against the pagans of Mecca in the times of Muhammad and have only limited temporal truth thus don't count today and hopefully their argument will be heard but some day...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
How do trolls like this go 7 pages with, as Rex Little already said, only one or two selective quotes from the Koran. I see some people trying to use hadiths when in all cases the words of the Koran supercede hadith when they conflict.

Sure, but if you give me the quran interpretation that conflicts with the hadith I posted in the last posts we can start talking. Amazing how those adverting that Islam is so peaceful can't come up with more than 1 or two very selective verses in all conversations I had yet while I can give you tons of intolerant ones (I haven't even started yet!)

It talks about the struggles between Fatah and Hamas and points out how in the harder times when there is little hope the more violent passages of the Koran are bandied about, Hamas gains in support and the opinions of the people swing toward more fundamental interpretation.

Sure, that's always how it happens. When you find yourself in an excellent position, don't feel threatened etc., there's no point in digging out aggressive stereotypes. Where I'm with you: All major religions must be so versatile as to be able to explain the world to people in almost contrary living conditions otherwise they wouldn't have spread. An all peaceloving religion would not explain the world and it's inherent reason to a variety of people, just like an all aggressive religion can't explain the world, when everything is running well...
But that doesn't change the fact that the Quran is full with violent language and in large parts clearly about the war against the pagans, directly accusing specifically named religions (jews but also christians) of being "the worst enemy", who "use to kill prophets" etc.

Generally these goofy anti-Islam arguements rely on the premise "what I see must be true". The majority of the groups on the US list of terrorist organizations are Islamic or at least come from Islamic countries so 1+1=2 but of course this couldn't possibly have anything to do with external events. No that would make things a little more difficult.

I honestly hope you don't mean my posts, for if you would carefully read them you'd have to see that I'm far from painting the world black and white or making simplistic arguments or trolling, but rather I elaborate my posts and try to address several facettes and layers of argument. Maybe I should repeat, to make you think, that I'm a)leftist, b)european, c) agnostic, d) anti-war, e) pro-palestinian.

Otherwise you would just make a thread on how religions in general are inherently violent.

Which is a very good topic for another thread.

[gsmoove23]

Sure, but if you give me the quran interpretation that conflicts with the hadith I posted in the last posts we can start talking. Amazing how those adverting that Islam is so peaceful can't come up with more than 1 or two very selective verses in all conversations I had yet while I can give you tons of intolerant ones (I haven't even started yet!)

I have never been one to say that Islam is so peaceful, just that as practised by millions around the world throughout history it has not proven to be more violent then most other religions which would be necessary in my mind for it to be called violent.

2 hadith /words of the prophet say: "He who changes his religion has to be killed."

As for this hadith, it contradicts the Koran which prohibits killing. All hadith are not accepted as truth and different sects of Islam put more or less weight on them. What is for certain is the Koran is the ultimate authority.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Quran is full with violent language and in large parts clearly about the war against the pagans, directly accusing specifically named religions (jews but also christians) of being "the worst enemy", who "use to kill prophets" etc.

and yet this is not reflected in the historic practise of Islam. My arguement is the hateful passages cannot be demonstrated as better or worse then any number of OT passages. What is perhaps more disturbing is direct references to Jews and Christians. Of course the OT has an advantage there, no presently established religions are mentioned because they didn't exist for the Jews. However the distaste for pagans is mirrored in the OT(So the Hindus are covered). All I can say is I find Islam no more violent then Christianity. To argue about this in anything other then a relative sense makes no sense.

I honestly hope you don't mean my posts, for if you would carefully read them you'd have to see that I'm far from painting the world black and white or making simplistic arguments or trolling, but rather I elaborate my posts and try to address several facettes and layers of argument. Maybe I should repeat, to make you think, that I'm a)leftist, b)european, c) agnostic, d) anti-war, e) pro-palestinian.

...and I'm a stunning blonde, 5'11", Dallas cowboys cheerleader. Sorry, I really don't know who you are, I can only judge you on what I read. I don't think you're necessarily a bigot but I find relying on the statistics of violent language displayed in an ancient text to label a religion, practised by a godawful amount of people, as violent to be a simplistic arguement.

[gsmoove23]

The few modern and tolerant interpretations acknowledge that this total war only was meant against the pagans of Mecca in the times of Muhammad and have only limited temporal truth thus don't count today and hopefully their argument will be heard but some day...

This is one of the comments that suggest to me you have a bias since there is simply no indication to me that the modern and tolerant interpretations can be called 'few'. What source do you use to come to this conclusion? The passages you have used clearly indicate a temporal struggle, whats more "fight them (the pagans) alltogether as they fight you alltogether..." sounds like a call to arms against a group that was already fighting the muslims. Does the longer passage fit your interpretation closer? If so please display.

[Oerdin]

Let's face the truth here. There are many tolerent muslims just as there are many tolerent people of every religion/faith/race/national origin, but, this doesn't change the fact that the basic wording of the Muslim holy book is the most violent and hate filled of all the major religions. This is not bigotry; it is simply fact and by understanding this fact we can begin to understand the root cause of Islam's extreamists and how they are able to sway none extreamist Muslims to their banner of hatred.

[yavoon]

neither, I am just responding to what you write gs. no malicious or asskissing intent.

[gsmoove23]

Oerdin,

Unless you can give some evidence of this beyond your assumption it is bigotry. Lists of violent lines from the koran mean nothing when compared to the sacred scriptures of any religion. Have you made a line by line comparison of the Bible and the OT? Are their many studies that support your assumption that aren't funded by christian or anti-muslim groups?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
As for this hadith, it contradicts the Koran which prohibits killing. All hadith are not accepted as truth and different sects of Islam put more or less weight on them. What is for certain is the Koran is the ultimate authority.

you don't believe yourself that this is an argument. OF COURSE the quran forbids "killing" i.e. murder, after all it has rigid social order and is far from being an anarchic religion. But you can hardly mistake the prohibition of killing with some pacifism or abstaining from violence. After all I've made several quotes from the Quran itself which even demand the slaughter of people (even if you view this as a historically bound demand), like Q9,5 but also others.
But let's leave out the hadith as they, as you say can be used very selectively and after all most muslims are aware of the factg that some have been invented later on.

However the distaste for pagans is mirrored in the OT(So the Hindus are covered).

The OT is pretty much against everybody.

All I can say is I find Islam no more violent then Christianity.

If you say so, I can't change your opinion and historically spoken it's true. But, and I can say this from an atheist perspective, I don't see anything similar to the Sermon on the Mount in the Quran, not even something that goes in that direction. And I know Christian groups which are dogmatic absolute pacifists - even too much for my taste - and who base this standpoint on the bible but I do not know any similar approach in Islam.
Yet generally spoken, for the majority of Christian groups, it's true.

To argue about this in anything other then a relative sense makes no sense.

Why? You don't need to compare to judge. When I argue about the violence in Christianity, I generally don't get that kind of "comparing argument". What would this discussion turn into then? "Your God says adulterers should get 24 whips, mine only 12 - my God is more peacful."

...and I'm a stunning blonde, 5'11", Dallas cowboys cheerleader. Sorry, I really don't know who you are, I can only judge you on what I read.

And I judhe on what I read. And I read that you obviously want to make the subtle hint that I'm a lier. I confess: I'm a hillbilly redneck from Mississippi, member of the KKK and NRA and I have seen nothing from this world beside my mudhole.

I don't think you're necessarily a bigot but I find relying on the statistics of violent language displayed in an ancient text to label a religion, practised by a godawful amount of people, as violent to be a simplistic arguement.

If Quran was only an "ancient text", it would be no problem, but lamentably it's the word of God and we're talking about whether it's a peaceful text or not so statistics do count. If you think my arguments are simplistic, then why don't you prove my interpretations or quotes from Quran wrong, putting them into the right context. So far, you've not even made a single quran quote

[Velociryx]

Some would say: "Communism is the ultimate form of government....if it's not led by fanatics and dictators."

Trouble is....it's got a GREAT track record of attracting fanatics and dictators. That trend *seems* to be relatively similar to Islam. Why? I dunno.

-=Vel=-

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


This is one of the comments that suggest to me you have a bias since there is simply no indication to me that the modern and tolerant interpretations can be called 'few'. What source do you use to come to this conclusion?

If I dig into the Sharia, no matter whether from hanafite, shafiite, malikit or other islamic lawmen, I find there violence, be it against women or against non-believers. Do you know any larger group of muslims that believes that the Sharia is not valid anymore or should never have been? Or any group that at least made an overhaul of the Sharia, making it more "enlightened"/modern/tolerant? There is none. Not caring about the sharia is not a theological theory but selective religiousity. First Islam must get rid of such pre-enlightened concepts like the sharia and the dimma, yet there's no indication for that happening.

The passages you have used clearly indicate a temporal struggle, whats more "fight them (the pagans) alltogether as they fight you alltogether..." sounds like a call to arms against a group that was already fighting the muslims. Does the longer passage fit your interpretation closer? If so please display.

Does it sound to you like that? Well, so it does to a good number of muslims, but not to others. Maybe it's just a pitty that Muhammad, sorry, God (for he dictated the Quran), forgot to add that he means only the Meccans of the 7th century...



I think I've given tons of arguments, why I consider Islam to be not peaceful, taking the burden on me to make an active proof (under the assumption that one's not guilty as long as not proven). Now I think it's time for someone to enlighten us, which parts of the Quran or Islam make it more peaceful. Which patterns of islamic culture are responsible for it being a tolerant religion.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Some would say: "Communism is the ultimate form of government....if it's not led by fanatics and dictators."

Trouble is....it's got a GREAT track record of attracting fanatics and dictators. That trend *seems* to be relatively similar to Islam. Why? I dunno.

-=Vel=-

That, for once, counts for every religion or ideology and got nothing to do with the ideas themselves.

[gsmoove23]

you don't believe yourself that this is an argument. OF COURSE the quran forbids "killing" i.e. murder, after all it has rigid social order and is far from being an anarchic religion. But you can hardly mistake the prohibition of killing with some pacifism or abstaining from violence.

I have made it perfectly clear that I don't believe Islam to be a religion of peace, any more so then any other. I was pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of quoting hadith to prove a point when their validity rests on very shaky ground.

If you say so, I can't change your opinion and historically spoken it's true. But, and I can say this from an atheist perspective, I don't see anything similar to the Sermon on the Mount in the Quran, not even something that goes in that direction. And I know Christian groups which are dogmatic absolute pacifists - even too much for my taste - and who base this standpoint on the bible but I do not know any similar approach in Islam.
Yet generally spoken, for the majority of Christian groups, it's true.

Regarding the sermon on the mount I have to concede this point. In my mind there are no better prophets then JC, though this may have been because I was brought up catholic(now atheist). What should also be pointed out is JC is accepted as a prophet by Islam and while they believe the NT has been altered I don't believe they ascribe any violent teachings to the man. But again JC makes it very clear that he is a teacher of the OT and the OT is law. I don't see the same majority of pacifists and pacifist sects in christianity that you see, in fact I see a majority of christians and christian groups supporting a war in Iraq, and am continually stunned how preachers ignore the teachings of JC and quote harsh OT passages.

There are two great differences between JC and Muhammad, which have already been pointed out here. JC is a spiritual man and Muhammad a political man. In one sense this can be seen as a flaw in JC, because while he taught pacifism and the golden rule this was only on an individual level, for the benefit of the individual's spirit. There is no mention of justice or earthly punishment for crimes, in fact no man could judge, God will sort it out in the end. Muhammad had a very different approach based on justice and creating a perfect society, which I see as the biggest problem for Islam today, as countrys try to move towards more modern forms of government sometimes directly opposed to the outdated words of the prophet.

Of course, it is easy to forget that for centuries western governments faced the same battles with religious groups, usually refering to OT verse, as they became prosperous and stable and their middle classes expanded while the arab world began to decline. Now we look at the arab world, still nowhere near recovering form the technology and economic gaps between east and west, and deplore them for modernizing so slowly and blame Islam for the very same obstacles Christianity offered to modernization in our own growth.

Why? You don't need to compare to judge. When I argue about the violence in Christianity, I generally don't get that kind of "comparing argument". What would this discussion turn into then? "Your God says adulterers should get 24 whips, mine only 12 - my God is more peacful."

All things are relative and to call any religion violent you have to have a relative scale. If there were one religion in the world it wouldn't be violent or peaceful it would just be. 2 religions, for one to be considered violent you would have to demonstrate how it is more violent then the other. On one level I would agree with you that Islam is violent, but so what, humans are violent and most belief systems they've created are violent. Without a relative scale this statement doesn't mean anything.

As for arguing about the violence in Christianity I would say so what, its no more violent then the next religion.

And I judhe on what I read. And I read that you obviously want to make the subtle hint that I'm a lier. I confess: I'm a hillbilly redneck from Mississippi, member of the KKK and NRA and I have seen nothing from this world beside my mudhole.

For give me if I offended you. My sarcasm was only meant to show how little bearing what you tell me you are has to do with my arguement. I can only respond to your arguement.

If you think my arguments are simplistic, then why don't you prove my interpretations or quotes from Quran wrong, putting them into the right context. So far, you've not even made a single quran quote

I wouldn't have to prove each quote wrong although I've responded to a couple. I concede that there are violent passages in the Koran but don't concede that this makes it a violent religion. The most unsettling thing in the Koran is where it makes direct violent or confrontational references to Jews and Christians, however this has more to do with Muhammad's chronological placement in time then any inherently violent message.

As for disputing every Koranic quote I'll do so when I see more shocking passages then I would see in the OT.

[gsmoove23]

DP

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III If I dig into the Sharia, no matter whether from hanafite, shafiite, malikit or other islamic lawmen, I find there violence, be it against women or against non-believers. Do you know any larger group of muslims that believes that the Sharia is not valid anymore or should never have been? Or any group that at least made an overhaul of the Sharia, making it more "enlightened"/modern/tolerant? There is none. Not caring about the sharia is not a theological theory but selective religiousity. First Islam must get rid of such pre-enlightened concepts like the sharia and the dimma, yet there's no indication for that happening.

I see you have selectively ignored the modernist movement in Islam. Its been around since the 19th century and has been the impetus for modern systems of law being introduced in many arab countries. You ignore that there are large numbers of modernist Islamic scholars and vast numbers of practitioners oppose the view that Sharia cannot be changed by man. Of course you're also ignoring that the Sharia is not the Koran. It is also the equivalent of the religious law systems that have existed in earlier Christian countries. Give me a break.

Does it sound to you like that? Well, so it does to a good number of muslims, but not to others. Maybe it's just a pitty that Muhammad, sorry, God (for he dictated the Quran), forgot to add that he means only the Meccans of the 7th century...

The Koran makes it clear when Muhammad is acting as a political leader in a temporal instance as opposed to when he is making pronouncements of law much like with OT prophets. But if you want to smear as much violent imagery on the page as you can and hope you'll convince some people I can't stop you. It would be just as disagreeable if you did so with the Bible.

I think I've given tons of arguments, why I consider Islam to be not peaceful, taking the burden on me to make an active proof (under the assumption that one's not guilty as long as not proven). Now I think it's time for someone to enlighten us, which parts of the Quran or Islam make it more peaceful. Which patterns of islamic culture are responsible for it being a tolerant religion.

I don't think this is necessary, you try to say it is demonstrably more violent I tell you how Christianity is as violent. Much better for me since I know more about Christianity. The only thing I'm arguing is that there is no significant difference between the two. I will say again, I don't think Islam is more peaceful.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I have made it perfectly clear that I don't believe Islam to be a religion of peace, any more so then any other. I was pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of quoting hadith to prove a point when their validity rests on very shaky ground.

Still, hadith are part of the belief of almost every muslim and it's just a selective and voluntary thing whether one accepts it or not - the religion leaves this space open - but we've agreed to except them, for they can't be proof for an inherent violence.

But again JC makes it very clear that he is a teacher of the OT and the OT is law.

A very weak point of Christianity IMHO, but that's for being atheist probably.

I don't see the same majority of pacifists and pacifist sects in christianity that you see, in fact I see a majority of christians and christian groups supporting a war in Iraq, and am continually stunned how preachers ignore the teachings of JC and quote harsh OT passages.

About the latter I'm stunned too. Regarding the rest, I see it differently - here in (continental) Europe almost everybody is against the war, including all clerics, whether lutherans or Catholics. The pope was one of the most decisive opponents of the war, because it could be wrongly understood as a war between religions. That doesn't make the Catholic church a haven of peace, but it's something. And I got the impression that most Christian churches in the US are against the war, especialy the catholics, but, as I've heard, also Bush's very own methodist bishop...
But right, that Christian OT blabla of the fundis around Bush is sickening.

Muhammad had a very different approach based on justice and creating a perfect society, which I see as the biggest problem for Islam today, as countrys try to move towards more modern forms of government sometimes directly opposed to the outdated words of the prophet.

Yes, the greatest calamity of Muhammad was conserving 7th century conditions as the word of God for all ages.

Of course, it is easy to forget that for centuries western governments faced the same battles with religious groups, usually refering to OT verse, as they became prosperous and stable and their middle classes expanded while the arab world began to decline.

I don't forget anything, I just don't think we're debating it here.

Now we look at the arab world, still nowhere near recovering form the technology and economic gaps between east and west, and deplore them for modernizing so slowly and blame Islam for the very same obstacles Christianity offered to modernization in our own growth.

Still I think that the violent passages of the Quran are very good "anchors" to canalize the feelings of despair and general hopelessness and the colonial scars into a potential of aggression unmatched by other religions although we see in the case of the Hindutwa that even an advertedly "peaceful religion" can be interpreted in a violent way when necessary.

For give me if I offended you. My sarcasm was only meant to show how little bearing what you tell me you are has to do with my arguement. I can only respond to your arguement.

And I was just telling you in response to the first assumption that I do nothing but "muslim bashing" and am a right wing troll. As if arguing that islam isn't peaceful means being a baptist republican fundi.

Yet I think we shouldn't go on in the discussion, it doesn't lead anywhere. I still don't see the necessity of relative judgements for one can always imagine a perfect pacifist religion and judge all others compared to it. No major religion is completely peaceful, sure, islam is much about fighting, so it's not peaceful. Period. Gotta go, the baby's crying...

[Ben Kenobi]

gsmoove:

I will say again, I don't think Islam is more peaceful.

You're not addressing Wernazuma's main point. The problem is not that Islam is less or as violent as Christianity, the question is whether Islam is violent at all.

The more you make the comparison, the more Wernazuma will keep hammering you on his points.

What you need to do is to change your argument, using Wernazuma's definition of violent.

Your points are good when arguing with a Christian, but are useless for an atheist, since Wernazuma has nothing to lose by arguing both are flawed.

[gsmoove23]

Obiwan, let me bring you back to one of Werna's earlier arguements...

Yet taking a look into the traditions of islamic law throughout history
there's little that qualifies to refer to Islam as a religion of peace. But it's not only the tradition - for tradition may change and christianity has had not a great record either. It's also the Koran. Again, some might say, the bible in some parts is bloodier than the Koran. Partially true, very partially though. This goes for maybe for those Christians who think the OT is still fully valid today and who rely much on it, yet you won't find Jesus Christ talking like that...
One of the major rules in all Islam is following the example of the prophet - even more than for Christians living according to Jesus' example. Now while Jesus was walking on lakes and partitioned bread, Muhammad was waging wars, telling his warriors to hunt and enslave all polytheists and last but not least annihilating a whole Jewish tribe (of course because they were treacherous...)

You're either full of it or you just haven't read the thread, most people will find it difficult to demonstrate a religion is violent or peaceful without a comparison of some sort.

Now, despite what you think the question is, the original poster simply made a statement (Islam as religion of peace) and asked for posters thoughts on it. To me calling it violent or peaceful would be incorrect.

[Ben Kenobi]

gsmoove:

I don't see anything similar to the Sermon on the Mount in the Quran, not even something that goes in that direction. And I know Christian groups which are dogmatic absolute pacifists - even too much for my taste - and who base this standpoint on the bible but I do not know any similar approach in Islam.

My apologies gsmoove, it seems that Wernazuma argues here that the sermon on the mount is the standard for a peace.

Please correct me if I have the wrong idea, Wernazuma.

[Wernazuma III]

It's hard not to follow the comparison pattern or let it uncommented when people start with it, moreover since we're used in our culture to think and argue with christian concepts, but it's still not the main point of my argument and has never been. When I compared Jesus and Muhammad I did it firstly as a response that the origins of the religions (and thus it's original intents) CANNOT be fully compared for the difference of their roots.

Neither mentioning Jesus' life nor the Sermon of the Mount were meant as arguments that Christianity is peaceful (not even compared to Islam). It was rather meant as an easily understandable analogy. "If I wanted to prove the peacefulness of Christianity, I'd start with the Sermon of the Mount, what religious basis would I dig out in Islam?"

[gsmoove23]

I would disagree with any labelling of Islam(or christianity) as peaceful, though it does seem to put an emphasis on law and justice. Any modern reader might be horrified on the passages that relate to the beating of wives and offer very specific punishments for particular crimes but they might overlook it also states that these punishments should not continue indefinately. If they do not bring about change then divorce should be sought. Also by giving very specific guidelines for domestic punishment the Koran is in fact restricting the punisher's hand. He does not have carte blanche to do as he will as he would given certain OT passages like "spare the rod, suffer the child"(or something to that effect).

Likewise, in affairs dealing with non-muslims the laws seem to be oppressive. Their word in court doesn't count against that of an Islamic man, they have to pay an extra tax, but it also ties the rulers hands. He quite clearly can only go so far before he is considered unjust, before he is committing a crime. Whereas Jesus only deals with sin, which is only punishable by God, and after all every man is a sinner.

EDIT - JC cops out on worldly justice to that extent and leaves it to the OT.

[Ramo]

I know tolerant muslims too, but if you're atheist and they like you, from a islamic theological perspective your family is already traitors. You'd be a "murtadd", which is, according to Muhammad, the worst crime of all, jihad against them is a demand.
2 hadith /words of the prophet say: "He who changes his religion has to be killed." "The blood of a muslim is free only in 3 occasions: When falling of the faith, betraying his wife and after a murder that has not been a blood feud." (translated by myself)

1. The word of Mohammed isn't equivalent to the word of Allah.

2. That's all well and good, but it's irrelevent if it isn't part of Moslems' beliefs. Since that's what we're discussing. And it isn't part of most Moslems' beliefs. Again, they generally are secular. Outside of Saudi Arabia, they tend not to have a penchant for killing people because they're infidels.

But yes, there are a number of passages in the Qur'an when Mohammed is on a power trip in the heat of a battle about slaughtering unbelievers, etc., etc. Yes, it gets pretty damn vicious. But not many Moslems take those passages to heart. It really is as simple as that. Just as most Christians and Jews don't take the parts of the OT about God condoning rape and genocide to heart. Most people are decent, regardless of creed.

Yes, ecclesiastical authorities in the Islamic world tend not to be all that enlightened. But authority, in general, tends not to be all that enlightened. But particularly in less developed states, which face more extreme poverty, ignorance, militarism, violence, etc.. When you bring in elements of force, tolerance and compassion tends to fly out the window. In Islam, ecclesiastical authority just happened to grow earlier than in Christianity, and it happens to last longer than in Christianity.