Is Islam really a peaceful religion?

[Zioneer]

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.

[Zioneer]

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.

Remind me who was the more enlightened, tolerant religion in the Middle Ages, in lets say, Spain. Was it Catholicism, with the killings and forceable relocation of Muslims and Jews? Or was it Muslim Al-Andalus, which had a reputation of tolerance and enlightenment? And who was more tolerant, Hapsburg Austria or the Ottomans?

It matters less about the content of scripture, and more how it is used. Jesus also said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword", after all. And the Quran has entries about treating "people of the book" kindly.

At times, Islam has been the more enlightened religion, at other times, Christianity.

And again, medieval Christian rulers and priests used both the Old and the New Testament when it suited them. Especially in medieval Christianity, you cannot divorce the Old Testament from the New Testament. Both were part of their ideology, both were part of their "founding" texts.

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.

As I said, even Buddhism has had violent moments, and it's an extremely peaceful religion according to it's theological texts, correct?

[Zioneer]

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).

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?

[Zioneer]

The idea that a "good Muslim" need to be a cartoonish evil sociopath and peaceful Muslims are just Muslims who doesn't follow their religion, are really not helpful or very insightful into what Islam is.

Of course at the same time people who begin to bleat about the wonders of Moorish Spain are a f**king joke. Moorish Spain was a dysfunctional disaster who depopulated much of Spain (with much of the population fleeing to the North) and was unable to set up a viable state. The reconquista may not have been nice, but it was no worse than the conquest of Iberia by the Moors.

As for Islam as the Faith of Peace(tm), it's a talking point and no more, Bush decided to use it to avoid unnecessary violence in USA against American Muslim, and that was a good thing, but you need to be blind, deaf and functional retarded to not have discovered 15 years after 9/11, that Muslims and Islamism are overrepresented in the world's conflicts, in fact they're more or less in conflict all places where they interact with non-Muslims...

...Well people, if you meet a asshole once a day, you have meet a asshole that day, if you meet ten asshole everyday, it's you who is the asshole. And it seems that Muslims keep being neighbours to people who don't like them, at some point that begin to say more about them than their neighbours.

It depends on what period of Moorish Spain you're talking about; there were periods of genuine toleration, and other periods of persecution and chaos. It depends on what family was in power in Al-Andalus. Same with the Ottomans, though regarding the Sultan and his Vizier rather than different families.

And Malaysia, the world's most populous majority Muslim nation, seems to get along with it's neighbors fairly well.

[Zioneer]

And Malaysia, the world's most populous majority Muslim nation, seems to get along with it's neighbors fairly well.

That doesn't really disprove his point that nearly all conflicts on Earth going on right now involve Muslims on one or both sides.  Yes, you can point to a couple that don't and yeah, you can point to a couple of non-Muslim groups currently doing something horrible.  But for the most part, if you pick any random current conflict, you can safely bet that Muslims will be involved.  I don't think that's a coincidence, you're welcome to try and prove otherwise.

good luck!

Perhaps they include Muslims, but are they centered around Islam? That's the key here. Not every conflict that includes Christians is a Christian conflict, after all.

For example, the Somali Civil War and the Kurdish-Turkish conflict involves Muslims on both sides, but neither conflict involves Islam specifically. Somalia's mess involves a bunch of different tribal groups jockeying for power in the complete breakdown of the Somali government, while the Kurdish-Turkish conflict involves and ethnic conflict about autonomy and independence. The Syrian and Yemeni wars are a Muslim conflict because they specifically involve different groups of Muslims whose hatred of each other is partially based in their interpretation of Islam. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves a very prominent Muslim cause, so it could be considered a "Muslim-Jewish" conflict. But the Pakistan-Indian conflict over Kashmir is not a Muslim conflict because the fact that Pakistan is Muslim does not make it a religious war.

[Zioneer]

And Malaysia, the world's most populous majority Muslim nation, seems to get along with it's neighbors fairly well.

That doesn't really disprove his point that nearly all conflicts on Earth going on right now involve Muslims on one or both sides.  Yes, you can point to a couple that don't and yeah, you can point to a couple of non-Muslim groups currently doing something horrible.  But for the most part, if you pick any random current conflict, you can safely bet that Muslims will be involved.  I don't think that's a coincidence, you're welcome to try and prove otherwise.

good luck!

Perhaps they include Muslims, but are they centered around Islam? That's the key here. Not every conflict that includes Christians is a Christian conflict, after all.

For example, the Somali Civil War and the Kurdish-Turkish conflict involves Muslims on both sides, but neither conflict involves Islam specifically. Somalia's mess involves a bunch of different tribal groups jockeying for power in the complete breakdown of the Somali government, while the Kurdish-Turkish conflict involves and ethnic conflict about autonomy and independence. The Syrian and Yemeni wars are a Muslim conflict because they specifically involve different groups of Muslims whose hatred of each other is partially based in their interpretation of Islam. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves a very prominent Muslim cause, so it could be considered a "Muslim-Jewish" conflict. But the Pakistan-Indian conflict over Kashmir is not a Muslim conflict because the fact that Pakistan is Muslim does not make it a religious war.

A point well made. I'd only add, to make it extra clear, that it's not at all apparent to me that the geopolitical factors fueling a lot of these conflicts would somehow not be present if the actors were predominantly some other religion.

Let me put it this way, one of the conflicts listed in that link is the War in Donbass, the war with Russians and East and West Ukraine, and so forth. I'm sure that there's very devout Orthodox on both sides, and according to Wiki Ukraine has a decently sized Ukrainian Greek Catholic population, but nobody would call it an Orthodox conflict or even a Christian conflict, because that would be absurd, and not the point of the conflict at all. Or the Mexican Drug War, is that a Catholic conflict? After all, there's devout Catholics involved, no? Of course it isn't a Catholic conflict.

And so it's the same way with some, but not all of the conflicts that involve Muslims. That fact that one or more of the belligerent nations or groups happen to be Muslim does not mean it's a Muslim conflict, because Islam itself is not a major part of the conflict.

Some other conflicts on in that link: the Libyan Civil War; definitely a Muslim conflict because part of the war involves the Islamists in Tripoli and of course ISIS. Sinai insurgency, yep, because the conflict involves the secular authorities and Islamist bandits. Balochistan conflict is an intra-Islam conflict because of Sunni and Shia factions, but with a heavy ethnic element. Moro conflict, yep, literally Islamist rebels against a Catholic government. But say, Kurdish separatism in Iran? No, that's more of an ethnic and nationality conflict.

Sometimes circumstances can change an ethnic conflict into a religious conflict; the Tuareg/Azawad rebellion in Mali got hijacked by Islamists, for example.

[Zioneer]

I'll agree that some of the conflicts involving Muslims don't have Islam to blame, but we can, and you just did, point to a more than a few that do.  Under that same criteria, are there any non-Muslim related religious based conflicts? No?  When was the last one?  The 30 Years War?  Maybe some Buddhist vs Hindu sh**t in India I don't know about because I'm a white dude from America and nobody teaches sh**t like that here?

Well, you should probably look up international events for one thing.

But in regards to religious-based conflicts, in Myanmar, there's genuine oppression of the minority Muslim Rohingya by the majority Buddhists. And at one point in Myanmar in the 1990s, there was an extremist Christian religious rebellion called the Lord's Army that employed Christian child soldiers. And Kony with his Lord's Resistance Army in Central Africa. But many of the non-Muslim conflicts are ethnically-based.

[Zioneer]

The idea that a "good Muslim" need to be a cartoonish evil sociopath and peaceful Muslims are just Muslims who doesn't follow their religion, are really not helpful or very insightful into what Islam is.

Of course at the same time people who begin to bleat about the wonders of Moorish Spain are a f**king joke. Moorish Spain was a dysfunctional disaster who depopulated much of Spain (with much of the population fleeing to the North) and was unable to set up a viable state. The reconquista may not have been nice, but it was no worse than the conquest of Iberia by the Moors.

As for Islam as the Faith of Peace(tm), it's a talking point and no more, Bush decided to use it to avoid unnecessary violence in USA against American Muslim, and that was a good thing, but you need to be blind, deaf and functional retarded to not have discovered 15 years after 9/11, that Muslims and Islamism are overrepresented in the world's conflicts, in fact they're more or less in conflict all places where they interact with non-Muslims...

...Well people, if you meet a asshole once a day, you have meet a asshole that day, if you meet ten asshole everyday, it's you who is the asshole. And it seems that Muslims keep being neighbours to people who don't like them, at some point that begin to say more about them than their neighbours.

It depends on what period of Moorish Spain you're talking about; there were periods of genuine toleration, and other periods of persecution and chaos. It depends on what family was in power in Al-Andalus. Same with the Ottomans, though regarding the Sultan and his Vizier rather than different families.

..And that's exactly the problem, you compare short periods of tolerance in Moorish Spain, which was followed with periodes of greater Islamic intolerance with Habsburg Spain at its very worst. There was also long periodes of Spanish tolerance toward Jews and Muslims, which was why their expellions happened so late.

Moorish Spain as some kind tolerant paradise are late 19th century propaganda, where the "savage" (the Moor) are hold up as a picture of greater virtues than the "knight" (the reconquistadors) as a way to sell a message of Europeans should be nice to religious minorities. They could sell that message because the Iberian moor no longer existed as a counter image and Europeans north of Pyrenees barely knew anything about Spanish history and barely saw the Iberians as Europeans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indonesia not Malaysia and while I don't think they horrible, their history in East Timor and eastern Indonesia are not a positive history.

So then the Moors in Spain were not any worse than the Christians; both groups had periods of oppression and periods of tolerance, no? As for the Catholics in Spain, the persecutions in earnest started as soon as the Spainards had complete control of the entire peninsula, like a year after they expelled the last of the Muslim emirates.

So if the Muslims were not perfect, they at least weren't any worse than the Christians, which defeats the point of calling Islam a violent religion and Christianity a peaceful one. It seems like you and some of the others are giving Christianity a free pass while criticizing Islam on every conflict it's been involved in.

As for Indonesia (apologies, I couldn't remember which was the most populous Muslim nation), that is a good point (as East Timor is indeed Catholic), but other than that, Indonesia (and Malaysia) haven't really taken part in religious-based conflict for a while.

[Zioneer]

Zioneer keeps saying people don't understand his point. We do understand your point. It's not a good point.

Christian society in the middle ages: Horrible by middle ages standards, horrible by modern standards

Islamic society in the middle ages: Okay by middle ages standards, horrible by modern standards

Christian society today: Good by current standards

Islamic society today: Bad by modern standards

Islamic society has never been good by modern standards. Christianity is. Islamic might not be capable of it. If it is, it has yet to demonstrate that.

No, I really don't think you understand my point. Despite all the back-and-forth on what counts as an Islamic conflict versus what doesn't count, my main point is this: Islam may have violent passages in its scriptures, but that does not mean that it is inherently violent. Looking at history, it's clear that Muslims are not always a brutal aggressor, and Christianity has just as violent a history as Islam, despite a much more peaceful holy book. Muslims, both relatively secular and religiously devout, can peacefully coexist with other religions. And it really doesn't matter if it's ignoring its holy book to be peaceable, because religious societies are based more in history than in their holy book. It doesn't mean that peaceful Muslims are not "real" Muslims.

I'm simply demonstrating that the history of religions matters more than the theology when it comes to violence, and that both Islam and Christianity have a mixed bag. And yes, Modern Islam is definitely a mixed bag, but generally millions of Muslims do live in peace with most everyone, except when their governments get into fights. Yes, there happens to be a prominent violent extremist streak in Islam, but that should not define the whole religion. Just like a former history of polygamy and the FLDS nutters shouldn't get to define my faith of Mormonism.

[Zioneer]

As for Indonesia (apologies, I couldn't remember which was the most populous Muslim nation), that is a good point (as East Timor is indeed Catholic), but other than that, Indonesia (and Malaysia) haven't really taken part in religious-based conflict for a while.

Yeah, just other than that one that's caused more deaths than Israel-Palestinian conflict.  Other than that....

Well, I don't see Indonesia getting into fights with anyone else, do you? And as I said with other conflicts, much of it could be an ethnic conflict as well.

[Zioneer]

It doesn't matter what their holy books say? The fact that a book is violent doesn't have any impact on how violent the people are who believe it's the infallible word of God are?

Again, that's just stupid. There's no other way to say it.

Let's not talk about violence because it's too controversial and it's making people overly cautious.

It would be like if there was a religion that said God wants everyone to wear green pants and you said "hey, that's got nothing to do with the fact that all their members wear green pants!"

Okay, I misspoke on that. What I mean is, what their holy books say matter less than their historical actions. Of course the holy books matter overall, but again, despite the New Testament saying "turn the other cheek" and "give all you have to the poor", medieval Christians weren't the greatest at that, and in several cases, were worse than Muslims. That isn't to absolve Muslims of all wrongdoing, they've certainly done a lot of terrible things, but the fact that a holy book says something doesn't mean a religious person always follows it. So I don't think it's fair to call Islam violent because its holy book has violent passages. And I really do think everyone in this thread has been giving Christianity a pass by equating them with just the New Testament. As I keep saying, the medieval Christians used the much more violent Old Testament almost as much as they used the New Testament.

And for that matter, are the Jews a violent religion because they use the Tanakh which of course includes what Christians know as the Old Testament?

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.

Heck, much of the blame for much of the inward, and eventually fundamentalist and violent interpretations of Islam can be placed at the foot of the Mongols, who destroyed more than one Muslim-ruled nation that was known for intellectualism and tolerance. Yes, the attitudes and interpretations of some Muslims haven't helped, but historical and geographical trends also played a part beyond the theology.

[Zioneer]

As for Indonesia (apologies, I couldn't remember which was the most populous Muslim nation), that is a good point (as East Timor is indeed Catholic), but other than that, Indonesia (and Malaysia) haven't really taken part in religious-based conflict for a while.

Yeah, just other than that one that's caused more deaths than Israel-Palestinian conflict.  Other than that....

Well, I don't see Indonesia getting into fights with anyone else, do you? And as I said with other conflicts, much of it could be an ethnic conflict as well.

Yeah, it could be, but since this was the "see, they ain't all violent" example, it kind of says a lot that they murdered more than 100,000 Catholics in a twenty year period.

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that Indonesia isn't exactly Saudi Arabia, Iran, or ISIS. Apart from a place that they considered theirs, they haven't really picked fights with their neighbors like the above countries have. And if I recall correctly, Indonesia has traditionally followed a less fundamentalist, more syncretic flavor of Islam.

[Zioneer]

Why are people even talking about Indonesia? The invasion and occupation of East Timor was based on rabid Indonesian Nationalism, not Islamism. About the only religious dimension was the enforced monotheism of Pancasila. (and of course the first independent PM of Timor-Leste was himself a Muslim)

It is true that existing conflicts have been inflamed by the latest fashionable trend of extreme Salafism and political Islam (i.e. secular nationalists/ left-wingers have been largely usurped by Islamism in places ranging from the Philippines to Palestine). But all trendy ideologies must pass - I see no reason to not believe that the current mass Islamism will go the same way as Arab nationalism or other such things that briefly gained a lot of serious thought by the chattering classes of the area before being discarded.

Well Islam as a political power (which it was as well as a religion at first) spread by military means, no doubt. And then, once ensconced in power, structures were established that encouraged conversion (and also out-migration from the Arabian peninsula) and so on and so forth. But the process established was not exactly rapid and huge tracts of the Middle East - less so North Africa where Christianity had been weakened greatly by internal conflict - were majority non-Muslim until surprisingly late in the day. And, much as is the case with Christianity in Europe, you'll search in vain for much evidence of conversion-at-swordpoint that doesn't turn out to be a later fabrication. And actually in one part of what became the Islamic World the Islamic conquest was very good news for Christians; Sassanid Persia was the worst persecutor of Christianity and Christians anywhere until the Tokugawa Shogunate.

Anyway, the ancient world was a violent place and so was the Mediaeval. Both the Bible and the Koran are considerably less 'violent' than a lot surviving broadly contemporaneous texts, many of which are generally regarded as entirely unproblematic; character building even. This sort of 'intellectual' venture is entirely pointless.

Finally, two perspectives that aren't rabidly anti-history.

[Zioneer]

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.

Bottom line is, no, you're wrong, and as I've been saying this whole time, while scriptures matter, who also matters is the behavior, history, and geopolitical position of a religion that determines the level of violence.

No, the two religions are not the same, but the same calculus applies to both.

There have been periods of history where Islam has not been especially violent by the standards of the time, just as there have been times where Christianity has been especially violent for the standards of the time.

For example, after the Muslims took control of much of the Levant/Palestine/etc, there was some initial violence as there always is with conquest, and yes, it was religiously based, but after the Muslims solidified their control, the levels of oppression and tolerance were hit and miss. Travelers speaking in that time period often compared the situation in the Holy Land to other places, and found Muslim control not especially oppressive. Christians and Jews were considered Dhimmi, which can mean a lot of things depending on the ruler, but literally means "protected non-Muslim person". There's a reason why the Quran says to protect the People of the Book.

But regardless, compare this relatively tolerant rulership (and non-violent... most of the time) of the Holy Land to the First Crusade. The Crusade had frequent murders of Jews on the way to the Holy Land, for example. And Christian chroniclers noted that in the Siege of Jerusalem, the "slaughter was so great, our men waded in blood up to their ankles". Perhaps that's an extreme example, but the frequency of Crusades for several decades normalized that kind of attitude of Christians towards Muslims. And yes, the Muslims fought back, but relatively speaking, the ones more violent in this case were generally the Crusaders.

And the successful Crusaders adopted the rulership style of the Muslims they had overthrown in any case.

[Zioneer]

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.

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.

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.