Is Islam really a peaceful religion?

[SillyAmerican]

I'm a bit surprised at how many people are willing to equate Islam and Christianity; the words attributed to Muhammad and those attributed to Jesus (or even Paul, for that matter) could not be more different.

I believe Islam has major problems when it comes to selling itself as a "peaceful" religion. The texts that radical Islamic followers often point to as justification for their actions are given below.

Comments? Please feel free to offer explanations of these versus and/or examples of similar Christian scriptures (which is to say, versus from the New Testament).

From the Qur'an (Sahih International translation):

2:190-191
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

3:28
Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.

3:85
And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.

5:33-34
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

8:12
[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

8:60
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.

8:65
O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are among you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved because they are a people who do not understand.

9:30
The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

9:123
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

22:19-20
These are two adversaries who have disputed over their Lord. But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water
By which is melted that within their bellies and [their] skins.

47:4
So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

[SillyAmerican]

You can't only include passages from the New Testament for Christians when medieval bishops and rulers often used the Old Testament to justify their violent acts.

Both Islam and Christianity has had violent histories. And they've also had peaceful bits of those same histories. Even Buddhism has had conquerors and murderers. All religions (and those professing no religion) have had violent actions.

Heck, the New Testament has violent descriptors as well, in describing what will happen to sinners at Judgment Day.

While I agree with you to an extent, the central figures of Islam and Christianity have very different teachings with respect to the treatment of outsiders. Yes, we can all point to more than enough examples of atrocities having been committed by those of a particular religious persuasion, whatever that persuasion might be. But scripturally, Christians rely primarily on the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the letters of Paul as their foundational writings, just as Muslims rely on the Qur'an as their foundational writings. I think most people understand that what Jesus said/did and what Muhammad said/did is central to the teachings of Christianity and Islam, respectively.

So with this as a starting point, my question is quite simple: is Islam really a peaceful religion, given the quotes I cited in the first post, and can anyone show me quotes similar in nature that come from the central writings of Christianity, which again is the text of the New Testament?

[SillyAmerican]

It is as peaceful or not as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto and the traditional Chinese and African cults.  Perhaps, Rastafarianism is a tad better.

This is a ridiculous question, and it does not deserve anything but a ridiculous answer.

There are those that would disagree with you, such as this young lady:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGE2eBUdlQ

So my ridiculous question remains. But please keep searching the scriptures, the exercise is good for you.

And sorry to offend your sensibilities, Zioneer. Yes, the Old Testament counts, but not as it relates to the application of the law. As you say, Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, so his teachings should take precedence. Given that, remember the little incident involving the stoning of the adulterous woman? I suppose readers here want to give equal weight to the following scriptures (from the NIV translation):

Deuteronomy 22:22 (Old Testament)
"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

John 8:1-11 (New Testament)
but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.  The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Jesus doesn't say that the woman doesn't deserve to be stoned, her activities are still a sin. However, something has clearly changed.

Again, I agree that people can try to cherry pick scriptures to support their politics. But Jesus wasn't interested in politics. The vital importance of the Old Testament for Christians is twofold: (1) it sets down God's law, and makes it abundantly clear that we are unable to follow it, and (2) it lays out the prophetic signals to Jesus (especially in Isaiah).

I agree with Terry Noble who writes for Christianity Today:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SillyAmerican]

Christianity is potentially violent but there are theological grounds for it not being violent. The fact that Jesus, considered to be the final authority on these things, said "don't stone people" and the general idea, accepted by most mainstream Christian denominations, that the Bible is not literal.

Islam has no such out. I mean, a Muslim could reject Koranic literalism but if they did that, what would be left of the religion? Islam is inherently violent and the only way for a Muslim to not be violent is to not be very observant (thankfully most aren't).

Yes, thank-you, that's my point exactly. People who want to argue that the folks committing atrocities in the name of Islam (ISIS et. al.) are somehow misunderstanding the tenets of Islam have it backwards. Islam is inherently violent. Those who would like to see Muslims brought into the 21st century (and they're out there) face censure and violence directed towards them from the Muslim community in which they live. Until people start recognizing this and addressing the underlying issue, we are fooling ourselves into thinking we can make headway against Islamic fundamentalism.

[SillyAmerican]

To say "Christianity is always a peaceful religion" or "Islam is always a violent religion" misunderstands historical context. At times, one has been more peaceful than the other, and whether or not their theological texts contain condemnation or embrace of violence (they both contain violence and peace), it's not the most important issue, the most important issue is how they've historically behaved, and how historical processes have affected them.

I am not saying that "Christianity is always a peaceful religion". Clearly, that's not always the case. What I am saying is that to understand Christianity, one needs to study what Jesus said and did, and to understand Islam, one needs to study what Muhammad said and did. So looking at these two people and their activities side by side, do either set of teachings encourage violence? If you're saying that both do, I'd like you to point out where Jesus does. (Sorry, but saying that people do violence in Jesus' name either because they're misinterpreting his teachings or because they're being disingenuous, that's not a reasonable argument for equating the two faith systems).

I understand what you're saying about the Catholic church advocating violence in the past. I understand that there are Christian groups that cling to violent positions, whatever those may be. But what I'm asking is whether or not these positions line up with what Jesus said/did, and whether or not the positions being taken by ISIS line up with what Muhammad said/did.

I listed several pieces of text from the Qur'an that support radical Islam and encourage violence. Do you know of any similar pieces of text anywhere in the New Testament? (Again, since Jesus is Christianity's center, the text in question would have to focus on the period during or after his life).

[SillyAmerican]

You're not understanding my point with the Old Testament. Medieval Christians used that almost as much as they used the New Testament. In fact, if Wikipedia can be trusted, a few medieval chroniclers (some of whom were priests) equated the Muslims with the Amalekites (an Old Testament Caananite group), and advocated the destruction of Muslims in a similar fashion.

And you're not understanding my other point, that the scripture itself matters less than the actions taken by officially "Christian" or "Muslim" societies at given points in history. There have been Muslim regimes that were happily tolerant towards their own subjects, and there have been Christian regimes that were barbaric and zealous. Clearly, either set of scriptures were either ignored or used in support of those regime's policies. And yes, the Islamic regimes that were tolerant could have ignored some of the Quran. That's what most governments do. Or do you really think Christian or Jewish governments always made eating shellfish illegal, for example? Or, as Paul in the New Testament advocates, keeping women from speaking in church?

And do you think Judaism is a violent religion? After all, the Old Testament is quite violent. Or does the historical context outweigh the implementation of the scripture?

Yes, historical context surely matters, and actions taken within societal structures matter. I get your point, and I agree with it, at least up to the point where it leads to the conclusion that "each religion has violent extremists, generic fundamentalists, New Age types, Christmas and Easter types, and more. The specific religion doesn't matter nearly as much as people pretend it does."

Because there's a critical difference: those Christians who love their Muslim neighbors and promote peace are acting in accordance with their scriptures, and those Muslims who love their Christian neighbors and promote peace are acting in opposition to their scriptures. Or at least that's how it appears to me. And the real problem with Islam is that Muslims who question any aspect of their faith run the risk of being labeled an apostate, which in many portions of the Muslim world is still considered a crime, a sin, and an act of treason punishable by death.

[SillyAmerican]

Just saw this today:

Here's What Happens When You Compare Violence in the Quran to Violence in the Bible

http://news.yahoo.com/heres-happens-compare-violence-quran-210900952.html

Yes, but the problem with things like this is that the New Testament is violent, the question is to who is the violence directed. Christ suffered greatly, the crucifixion was no cake walk, and there's all the stuff that happened to Paul. Yes, the text is full of violence, but to my knowledge nowhere does the book exhort violence towards others.

[SillyAmerican]

Why don't you ask a moderate Muslim about their views on their faith rather than dictating it to them?

Okay, how about we ask this young lady?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGE2eBUdlQ

[SillyAmerican]

Initial Islamic and Christian expansion was violent (and was happening at roughly the same time). Wahabbism and strands of Christianity that are expanding outside of our western bubble are passive agressive. In isolated incidents that can turn violent. Whether you hurl gays off buildings or try to exorcise them both are acts of violence.

One of the reasons folks got so irritated by Jesus was that he didn't get into the politics of situations, and didn't distinguish who among us is worthy of being dealt with. (News flash: none of us are; all sin and fall short of the glory of God). If you can understand how the twelve closest first followers of Christ can include both a tax collector and a zealot, you begin to understand the power of Christianity. In general, I agree with you: many of those who call themselves the "religious right" need to re-read and consider the message of Mark 2:13-17, and ask themselves whether their thoughts/actions are in line with those of Jesus or the Pharisees.

[SillyAmerican]

But in any cause, I don't think it's fair to call Islam an inherently violent religion, just as it's not fair to call Christianity an inherently violent religion. Yes, Islam has more violent strands than Christianity now, but a lot of that has been exacerbated by events and trends that don't necessarily involve the theology itself.

Islam has always involved a high level of violence. Christianity has sometimes had high levels (even higher than Islam even) of violence but other times had almost none at all. Christianity is a mixed bag. Islam is consistently violent.

Bottom line:

If a "Christian" endorses the killing of non-Christians (whether now or in the past), I would ask whether or not they are acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If a "Muslim" endorses peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims (whether now or in the past), I would ask whether or not they are acting in accordance with the teachings of Muhammad.

In both of these cases, I would ask for scriptural evidence for your answer. Saying that people who claim to be Christian or Muslim act in both good and bad ways, therefore the two faiths are basically the same? That is ultimately a dangerous avoidance of the root problem.

[SillyAmerican]

It's really a meaningless label. None of the three Abraham religions, which are Judaism, Christianity and Islam, rejects war and violence.

Of course, neither can be labeled as inherently violent either.

Okay, that's an interesting claim; you seem to be agreeing with Zioneer. The problem is everybody likes to speak about these religions in the abstract, as if we don't have any idea what the central figure of each had to say about a given subject. In my initial post, I gave examples of specific verses from the Qur'an regarding the way Muslims should act towards those not of the faith (which is to say, with violence). I then asked for examples of similar scriptures from the Christian book, and none has been forthcoming.

So basically, everyone wants to say that the three religions are the same, but nobody wants to back this claim up with evidence. And by evidence, I don't mean pointing to the activities of past/present pseudo Christians and pseudo Muslims (the people who either don't follow the teachings of their scriptures, or pick and choose from the teachings). No, I'm talking about going to the source, the books themselves, to show if any of these rejects violence and/or exhorts violence.

I'll continue to hold...

[SillyAmerican]

Here's an idea: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the same, but none of them are inherently either peaceful or violent.

Again, I'd appreciate specific writings from the central book associated with each of the three religions to back up your claim. (I'm interested in Christianity and Islam, but if you want to broaden it, that's fine; show me where Christianity says that those of other faiths should be killed, or that it's ok to have sex with 9 year old girls).

I'm not trying to "generalize" things. On the contrary, if anything, I'm trying to get down to the specifics of the teachings of the actual faith.

[SillyAmerican]

You want specific writings? Well, stop asking us to do it and look it up yourself! If you're not willing to do that, then here you go! Good lord, you're like a broken record.

Sorry, I thought the whole purpose of having a discussion topic was to generate discussion. Yes, I've been arguing a specific point of view, and asking for counter arguments. Again, that's the whole point of these posts.

Of specific note:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From what I've been able to parse, it looks like the bolded says something along the lines of "hey, don't kill the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians), unless they injure you first".

here's another perspective, from Muslims themselves.

Do your own research; the burden of proof is on you. We've been very patient in explaining various points in history where Muslims have been no more or less violent or peaceful than their non-Muslim neighbors, and several cases where they were (slightly) more peaceful.

You're clearly in this thread with an ingrained attitude, and won't budge with any deviation from that.

I'm happy to do my own research, but unless somebody can offer a good reason why I shouldn't enlist discussion about this particular topic on a board designated General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy, I'll continue to believe this is not out of line. (Just so we're clear, I'm not just in this thread, I created it. You need not offer responses; that's completely up to you...).

As to the quote you offer, that's a solid one. In fact, there's an even better quote from which we can conclude that Islam forbids the killing of innocent human beings:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(5:32, again the Sahih International translation)

The following is an excellent article regarding what we're really talking about:
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/christian-responses-to-islam-islamism-and-islamic-terrorism-by-colin-chapman/

The two citations I find most interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Peter G. Riddell and Peter Cotterell, Islam in Conflict: Past, Present and Future, IVP, 2003, pp.7–8.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sookhdeo, Understanding Islamic Terrorism, pp.143, 214, 217, and 221.

These views appear to be in line with those of a book I read a few weeks back by Ayaan Hirsi Ali entitled Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, which was the genesis of this discussion.

I welcome the thoughts of others, for those who wish to offer any...

[SillyAmerican]

Why not ask a moderate Muslim about the faith he or she practices, rather than trusting that a conversation between a bunch of non-Muslims is going to decisively arrive at objective standards for who is and isn't a "real" Muslim? This is not the first or second time I've asked this question, and I'll guess it won't be the first or second time you've ignored it.

Well, I was hoping to find some moderate Muslims amongst the Atlas members (or are you saying there aren't any?) But go ahead, ask the question a third or fourth time, maybe the answer will somehow come to you...

[SillyAmerican]

Just saw this today:

Here's What Happens When You Compare Violence in the Quran to Violence in the Bible

http://news.yahoo.com/heres-happens-compare-violence-quran-210900952.html

Yes, but the problem with things like this is that the New Testament is violent, the question is to who is the violence directed. Christ suffered greatly, the crucifixion was no cake walk, and there's all the stuff that happened to Paul. Yes, the text is full of violence, but to my knowledge nowhere does the book exhort violence towards others.

The Old Testament is part of the Christian scripture, right?

Yes, the Old Testament is part of the Christian scriptures, but not in the way you're thinking. The Old Testament supplies three important things: (1) an introduction to God and his chosen people Israel (and yes, their history and struggles), (2) the law under which we must operate in order to be able to have a relationship with God (and why we are simply unable to operate under that law, and need help), and (3) prophetic indications of the nature of the help that will be provided by God.

For some insight, read the following: https://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Understand that "christians" and non-christians alike have trouble grasping and reflecting this idea, which is why it continues to play a big part in both the objection people have to "christianity" and the splintering of (and divisiveness within branches of) the christian church.

[SillyAmerican]

Many religions have violence in them. Just because the violence exists in it's history doesn't mean that the religion itself is violent.

Correct. The people arguing that Islam is violent are not arguing that just because there is violence in its history. They are arguing that because its theology justified that violence.

Nevermind their scripture, just look at the actions of people, and why they claim to be doing said actions.  If bad guy does bad thing and proudly claims before he does this bad thing that he is doing it for X reason, and many many thousands of old people, young people, men, women, healthy, weak, rich, poor, from a dozen different cultures all claim the reason they are about to do this horrible act is for X reason.  The rest of us should probably be concerned about X reason.

No. The whole point is that if you call yourself a Christian, you are a follower of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the New Testament, and if you call yourself a Muslim, you are a follower of Muhammad (pbuh and my Muslim friends) and the teachings of the Qur'an. Anyone can say that they are "Christian" or "Muslim", but what does that mean? I contend that it means you are trying to internalize and operate in accordance with your holy scriptures, in which case we should look to those scriptures for answers into why you do what you do (and/or why you should or should not be doing what you are doing). That's the only way to objectively evaluate the actions of a "Christian" or a "Muslim", the only way of getting at the truth of the matter.

Sidebar case in point: As a boy, Hitler attended Catholic church, and the Nazi soldiers had "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles. From this, we can conclude that these folks were operating as Christians, right? Well, you might try to make that claim, but I'd ask you to explain to me how their activities, or what they were fighting to promote, involved loving their neighbors. A christian should be recognizable by the fruit of their lives, per Galatians 5:22 (NKJV):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's impossible to square Nazi activities with this scripture. It's impossible to square the activities of those who bomb abortion clinics with this scripture. It's impossible to square the activities of many who self identify as the christian "religious right" with this scripture. To be "Christian" means something.

The same goes for being "Muslim"; what that something is for the Muslim, that's the point of my question in this thread...

[SillyAmerican]

A whole thread of "No True Scotsman." Awesome.

You think there's a hole in my reasoning? Where abouts?

You think I've moved the argument away from the original assertion? How so?

I think I've been pretty consistent, but I could be wrong...

[SillyAmerican]

Many religions have violence in them. Just because the violence exists in it's history doesn't mean that the religion itself is violent.

Correct. The people arguing that Islam is violent are not arguing that just because there is violence in its history. They are arguing that because its theology justified that violence.

Exactly.

I just read and listened to comments made by Andrew McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney.

In a speech at Hillsdale College (February 24, 2016):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In an interview after the Brussels attack (March 23, 2016):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with Mr. McCarthy. We need to address the root problem, which is that the Islamic scriptures do not promote peace, they encourage violence. If we continue to approach the problem without this recognition, if we continue to play the politically correct narrative which says that this has nothing to do with Islam, we will continue to see carnage and innocent victims on the nightly news.

[SillyAmerican]

I said not one word about biblical literalism. I was merely saying that acting as though the Old Testament doesn't exist is faulty reasoning.

Who is acting as though the Old Testament doesn't exist? The Old Testament speaks of the Old Covenant, and the New Testament speaks of the New Covenant. While the Hebrew Bible teaches the law, the history of the Jewish people, and the prophetic indications of Christ's coming, Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, and those are given in the New Testament. Christ was Jewish, the Apostles were Jewish, all members of the early church were Jewish, Christ's death and resurrection can be viewed as Christianity's passover; so clearly "Christians" believe in the Old Testament, but their theology is rooted in the New Testament. A person who only believes in what the Old Testament says is called "Jewish", while a person (Jew or Gentile) who believes in the New Testament is called "Christian" (or perhaps "Messianic Jew"). Christian faith and doctrine are provided for within the Gospels and the accounts of the early church (found in the book of Acts and Paul's letters). Christians don't act as though the Old Testament doesn't exist, we act as though the promises provided for within the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament, as though we cannot succeed on our own under the law but need the grace that is found in Jesus, the Christ. I hope that makes sense, 'cuz I don't quite know how else to explain it.