Discuss and Debate: "Islam is a Religion of Peace"

[Brill]

I found this funny as hell.

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

I guess I'm confused, I thought this thread was to discuss whether Islam is a religion of peace, not a compare and contrast between it and Christianity.

Apologies, I was just using examples of similar issues Christians face to make it easier to relate. I have no problem removing the compare/contrast from future posts. Thanks for the heads up.

Also, I will try to reply to your other post later tonight after class.

 

[Brill]

In all seriousness, this thread, as I understand it, is not a comparative analysis of the Qur'an but rather discussing whether or not Islam is in fact a religion of peace. To that end, I would recommend defining "peace". To me peace is synonymous with non-violence, tolerance, acceptance, etc as epitomized in the Buddist philosophy.

Additionally the Qur'an, to my knowledge, has never killed anyone or inflicted violence upon others whereas the followers of Islam clearly have. (Side note: I went into a "Qur'an shop" (a kitab) in a Muslim country to purchase a Qur'an and holder. I meant no harm however I was quickly asked to leave because I was clearly a gringo. I'm sure had I stayed, I would have been injured by a thrown holy book. :-" ) Therefore quoting the Qur'an to justify a position is actually flawed because the book is nothing more than Arabic words that are interpreted by people in different ways hence Sufism, Shiaism, Whabbism, etc.

I believe that in order to clearly state the premise of this thread, it be renamed "Are the followers of Islam more apt to incite violence in the name of Allah?" but even then that title presupposes that Muslims are violent.

Thoughts?

 

[Brill]

Fuck me it IPhone sucks at the cut and paste shit. Mara please tidy if you will. With the above I had a wry smile to myself as a minority can be acused of hijacking a religion so too did Paul hijack another.
There's some icky stuff in Leveticus but were wise enough to have taken it today with a grain of salt. The islamists still ( or some of them) still want to live the old way.
With regard to OBL he didn't have the stature to issue fatwas and this point has since been clarified by Islamic scolars through the an Declaration.
SURAH V:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends to one another. He among you who taketh them for friends is ( one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
There is too the Sword verses SURAH IX 1-8. the only ones in the koran which do not begin with " in the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful." It makes interesting reading.

Here is an interesting paper that goes deeper into the surahs that QC ref'd and well as Islamic Rulings on Warfare. The paper cites the Qur'an but goes deeper into how the radicals justify violence in the name of Allah.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub588.pdf

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

I believe that in order to clearly state the premise of this thread, it be renamed "Are the followers of Islam more apt to incite violence in the name of Allah?" but even then that title presupposes that Muslims are violent.
Thoughts?

If this is the case than I will run out of rebuttals fairly quick . I could try really hard, but it would require comparing followers of other religions, & to be honest, I'm not sure how far I could take that logically. If that's what the powers that be want, I will try to finaggle some arguments.

 

[Brill]

If this is the case than I will run out of rebuttals fairly quick . I could try really hard, but it would require comparing followers of other religions, & to be honest, I'm not sure how far I could take that logically. If that's what the powers that be want, I will try to finaggle some arguments.

I would also argue that in order to really understand the actions of radical Muslims, one should look at the source of beliefs that are "modified" (twisted, manipulated, etc) to convince others to act violently OR to exercise tolerance and the only way to do that is to understand (interpret) the Qur'an: an extremely difficult task.

Is the activity depicted in this photo haraam or not? In order to argue a position, the rules of Islamic prayer must be understood and the source of that understanding is the Qur'an (or from a mufti, imam, or Abu Azzam).

 

[HOLLiS]

Problem with the Qur'an it has contradictions in it, interpretation can go in several directions, among other issues.

Christianity changed from within. I would remind people to look at Martin Luther's 95 These. So can militant Islam change from within? In some ways, Islam is a militant religion.

It is also not written for women, see Sura Al Nesa. Look at the Hadiths, the life and times of Mohammad, which are used to help clerics to understand the Qur'an. Among other issues, while the Qur'an may be the first book written in Arabic, there are linguistic errors. Those tend to say, it was originally written in Syriac and among other sins of Mohammad, he plagiarized, or the person who actually wrote the Qur'an did.

Interpretation is probably the biggest issue. The Qur'an is considered a reader. One can recite it, but one can not read it. Reading it, implies interpreting what one is reading. The Interpretations is like Papal infallibility. It can not be questioned, so the way it is interpret, is the way it is. There are also a movement to re-interpret the Qur'an and Hadiths... along with Barkari (sp?)

Islam is up to interpretation and where it goes is up to the Muslims.

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

Interpretation is probably the biggest issue. The Qur'an is considered a reader. One can recite it, but one can not read it. Reading it, implies interpreting what one is reading. The Interpretations is like Papal infallibility. It can not be questioned, so the way it is interpret, is the way it is. There are also a movement to re-interpret the Qur'an and Hadiths... along with Barkari (sp?)

Islam is up to interpretation and where it goes is up to the Muslims.

I think that's an excellent point that I had not really considered until you mentioned it. Thanks for that.

 

[Headshot]

Religion is the enemy of faith, which should be the basis for belief. Any "religion" that promotes teaching children to hack off the heads of people has no place being referred to as a "religion of peace".

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

Okay, to tie in my premise that we are war with Islam and that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Fundamentally, Islam has not evolved or changed. It began through violence, was maintained with violence, and that pattern continues to this day. There was even a split after Muhammad's death and that split continues to enjoy untold amounts of violence to this day. The religion has no issues with solving internal disputes with violence, so why should an external issue be any different? Islam's growth has always coincided with violence and is only stopped through violence, political discussions or concessions have no room in this area as far as Islamic leaders are concerned.
If you have time or the inclination, can you flesh this out a little further with specific examples? I have a response for the split after Muhammad's death that I will give after class today, but particularly for the part about beginning & maintenance through violence so I can address them directly? Beginning & maintenance cover a large swath of time & would prove extremely difficult to find enough time to write about. Thanks for these challenging arguments. You guys are really making me work here. I wish I was getting college credit for this.

Why we are at war with Islam: The West doesn't want to admit it. It cloaks it's arguments with "democracy" and "freedom" and while that may well be the goal of the West (one I have no issues with), the "OPFOR" see it in a different light. As before, politics clothed in religion or not, it doesn't matter. Our opponents use religion as the justification for their actions. The West has been very adamant that this isn't about religion and indeed Western governments don't seek to convert the Followers of the Prophet, but if we took religion out of the equation do you think we'd still cling to the democracy angle? I don't think so because we could brand this (fill in the blank) organization as our enemy and then hunt them down the world over, but the West sees itself as tolerant towards other people and vigorously side-steps the religious aspects of the war.
Interesting points. I will have to look into this more.
So there's my contribution on half a cup of coffee.
Well done, good sir!

 

[AWP]

If you have time or the inclination, can you flesh this out a little further with specific examples? I have a response for the split after Muhammad's death that I will give after class today, but particularly for the part about beginning & maintenance through violence so I can address them directly? Beginning & maintenance cover a large swath of time & would prove extremely difficult to find enough time to write about. Thanks for these challenging arguments. You guys are really making me work here. I wish I was getting college credit for this.

Um, okay.

The Profit...err, Prophet and his people were harrassed by the residents of Mecca. They went to Medina and eventually laid siege to Mecca, but not before several battles, numeorus raid, at least one ordered assassination, and the conquest or subjugation of several tribes opposing The Profit. Mecca finally fell in 630....after 8 years of fighting.

Then you have a series of battles/ wars from 634-750 which include the conquests of Iraq, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Cyprus, Hispania, and Georgia.

As to the maintenance of the religion, you have the civil wars associated with the Sunni/ Shi'a split, the Abbasid's and Umayyad's. You have the Qarmatians and Seljuk Turks, and there's the AFghan expedition into Nuristan around 1896 with the sole purpose being "convert or die." I consider civil wars to be maintenance because one side is fighting an internal threat to maintain the status quo.

While many nations see similar cycles of violence, they are rare and they aren't an accepted part of life. The Sunni/ Shi'a split prevents this and they are still fighting over it to this day. It isn't as noticeable as it was during the caliphates thanks to modern national borders, but it is still there and reasonably frequent...or day-to-day as we see in Iraq.

 

[Marauder06]

See below.



Mara, don't look now but Free just called you "Batman" (Adam West). ;)

lol

I assure you, he has called me far worse. A couple of times (in Afghanistan) he has even done it in person ;)

 

[Brill]

Um, okay.

The Profit...err, Prophet and his people were harrassed by the residents of Mecca. They went to Medina and eventually laid siege to Mecca, but not before several battles, numeorus raid, at least one ordered assassination, and the conquest or subjugation of several tribes opposing The Profit. Mecca finally fell in 630....after 8 years of fighting.

Then you have a series of battles/ wars from 634-750 which include the conquests of Iraq, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Cyprus, Hispania, and Georgia.

Peace be upon them.

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

Um, okay.

Thanks. I will gather some notes to prepare a response that I will post later this evening or tomorrow.

 

[QC]

Here is an interesting paper that goes deeper into the surahs that QC ref'd and well as Islamic Rulings on Warfare. The paper cites the Qur'an but goes deeper into how the radicals justify violence in the name of Allah.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub588.pdf

That's an interesting read. The question has been posed in the past,"how do you defeat and idea?" My answer is you do it with a better idea.

 

[HOLLiS]

Muslims also justifies acts of peace.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201201090750.html

From the article:

The leader of the group, Gimba kakanda, who spoke to Daily Trust, said, "We are protecting our fellow Christian brothers and sisters to show the world that our leaders cannot use religion to divide us. We want to send a signal by coming here to protect our fellow Christians that we are one and we can stand to protect one another".

It is all about interpretation and who is doing the interpretation. A good person will use the Qur'an to support good acts, or a bad person will use the Qur'an to support bad acts.

The good Muslims do need our support. Isolating them will probably push them over to the dark side.

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

The Profit...err, Prophet and his people were harrassed by the residents of Mecca.
harassment is rather mild term for what happened to Muhammad’s first followers, isn’t it? The Meccans were worried about how Muhammad’s message threatened their "capitalistic profits" (for lack of a better word).
Abu Jahl issued a order to boycott Muslims. Meccans were not allowed to trade or marry Muslims. The result was 2 years of financial ruin, starvation & scrounging for food. Slaves that converted to Islam were tortured & left to out naked in the sun until they died.
Things got worse when Muhammad’s protector, Abu Talib died, leaving Muhammad to be killed for an or no reason according to the customs of the times. This is when he went to Yathrib as I posted about earlier. The result was something unprecedented in the Arab world: tribes entered into an agreement not to fight each other. Also, people of other faiths were free to worship their way.
...numerous raids...
Raiding was a harsh reality that no Arab escaped from. One historian described it as so common it was "the national pastime of the Arab world." Muhammad initially focused on small caravans, but as more converts came to Yathrib (now called Medina), this would no longer do. Hence the attack on the large Meccan caravan. This raid that essentially began the war with Mecca was not simply a “F you” or even out of any notion of religious conquest- it was a harsh reality that was necessary to keep the ummah alive.
Mecca naturally responded with a military campaign against Muhammad.
...several battles...
as a result of the Meccan campaign against them.
...at least one ordered assassination...
I’m not aware of the assassination order, but I am looking forward to any elaboration.
...the conquest or subjugation of several tribes opposing The Prof...
Are you referring to the 3 Jewish tribes Muhammad killed/sold to slavery? if so, I mentioned that previously. If not, my apologies.
...eventually laid siege to Mecca..
After the Battle of Trent, Muhammad took on a peace offensive (March 628), which many Muslims resented him for. What he did was let everyone know he was going on a hajj to Mecca & said whoever wanted to go with him can. Pilgrims were not allowed to carry weapons on the hajj, so Muhammad literally risked the annihilation of his people. The Meccans sent on armies to wipe them out before they got to Mecca, but Muhammad evaded them (thanks to Bedouin allies). The result was that the Quraysh signed a treaty with Muhammad, which they violated in 630, so Muhammad marches up to their doors w/ 10,000 men. Without even fighting, the Quraysh accepted defeat. Even after he rededicated the Kabah, he did not force the Quraysh into conversion, though many did convert. News of this spread, & more & more Arab tribes joined the ummah, (temporarily) preventing the tribal warfare that had plagued the Arab world.
Then you have a series of battles/ wars from 634-750 which include the conquests of Iraq, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Cyprus, Hispania, and Georgia.
And here is where all the nice ideals put forth in the Quran start to fall apart. The larger the ummah became, the harder it was to govern. Muhammad did not teach how to run a bureaucracy.
Abu Bakr had to deal with tribes who decided that their partnership with the ummah was over since they made the deal with Muhammad, not Abu Bakr. These tribes were mostly bedouins who entered the ummah with self interest in mind, not really religious piety (though many claimed religious reasons for breaking apart).
As to the maintenance of the religion, you have the civil wars associated with the Sunni/ Shi'a split,
I mentioned this split in a previous post.
...the Qarmatians and Seljuk Turks, and there's the AFghan expedition into Nuristan around 1896 with the sole purpose being "convert or die." I consider civil wars to be maintenance because one side is fighting an internal threat to maintain the status quo...
I will be honest & say I need to brush up on my post-rashidun knowledge, but a lot of this is due to the fact the Caliphs down the road, in an effort to prevent outside influence, closed the doors of ijtihad (I butchered the spelling there, so I apologize). The result was that the philosophers and innovators could not put forth any new ideas. Stagnation set it, which led to ignorance, which leads to stupid sh*t. I will spend the weekend reading up on the crusades & whatnot so I am better informed for that part of the debate.
While many nations see similar cycles of violence, they are rare and they aren't an accepted part of life.
A lot of the violence, especially during the rashidun & particularly during the Ummayad dynasty, was unpopular with the people.
The Sunni/ Shi'a split prevents this and they are still fighting over it to this day. It isn't as noticeable as it was during the caliphates thanks to modern national borders, but it is still there and reasonably frequent...or day-to-day as we see in Iraq.
I agree completely, but I think it’s important to keep in mind the culture & times they came from. Every region has violence, but Islam came on the seen amidst a society infected with perpetual violence, more so than a large majority of other nations. That is not Muhammad’s doing or fault. Compared to the times he lived in, he was rather mild. Also, one of Islam’s biggest failures, as I currently understand it, is that the bar was set way too high with no instructions left on how to keep it from falling. The early Muslims saw this & felt extremely disenfranchised when Muhammad’s closest peers started assassinating each other. Add this to the fact that as time went on, people lost sight of the context in which the Quran was written. The results of this are currently walking around with explosive vests or blatant indifference towards the perversion of their own religion.

 

[QC]

Thanks for the clarity in #57. I've said it here before some time ago that there is the Islam of prayer, reflection and pilgrimage, no issue. Then there is the militant variety which is the one the world has been involved with one way or another for a decade or so? Is Islam a religion of peace, yes. Is it violent? Yes. The irony is the tiny minority of Salafists who make it so.

 

[pardus]

Thanks. I will gather some notes to prepare a response that I will post later this evening or tomorrow.

You are doing all this as an intellectual exercise, or...?

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

You are doing all this as an intellectual exercise, or...?

I am not sure what the ...? is referring to, but rest assured, this is an intellectual exercise. As I posted earlier, I realize I am only 25 & can only know so much at this stage. I am playing the advocate because if I was taught something incorrectly, or have misunderstood what I read, it is my most sincere hope that the wiser heads on SS correct me.

If you are implying I'm trying to advocate or push an agenda, I can assure that's not the case. If it was, I would have entered into a debate with people of similar age & lesser experience than myself. I was simply referring to my notes that are currently lost in my office. I have only been actively studying this topic for a short time, so I need to refer to my notes from time to time, particularly in cases post-rashidun. I currently am undecided where I stand on this issue, which is why I am so thankful for the opportunity to engage in this debate. I too have strong reservations on Islam because of what I saw and experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan, & I am trying, to the best of my ability, to come to my own conclusions based on intelligent discussion & input from others.