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.

[Enduro]

No religion is a completely 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.

[Blue3]

Check out the "Understanding Islam" thread.

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

No religion is a completely peaceful religion.

+1

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Islam is not a pacifist religion.

[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?

[Slander and/or Libel]

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?

Do you have any familiarity with the Bible at all? Why do you have to ask other people this question if you do?

Besides which, as has been noted, you're being unnecessarily restrictive to dictate that we stick only to the New Testament, as though the Old doesn't count. After all, Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Claiming that we should disregard all the violence of the Old Testament is pretty nonsensical, especially considering that many evangelical Christians today are using it to advocate for discrimination against (up to and including outright lethal violence toward) gay people.

[ag]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Atlas Forum R&P board: where pseudo-history and dubious theology battles mightily against pseudo-history and dubious theology...

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

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

Note the original poster's username and posting history. That should explain it.

[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.

[Famous Mortimer]

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).

[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.

[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?

[SNJ1985]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

http://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/1400-years-of-christian-islamic-struggle

Muslims were regularly attacking Christians before the First Crusade was launched. Throughout history, there were actually far more Muslim invasions of Christian territory than Crusader invasions of Muslim territory. There was even a time when Muslim slave traders from North Africa took Europeans as slaves.

[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).

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why don't you seek out the opinions of moderate Muslims and try to understand how they reconcile what you see as troublesome verses, rather then try to dictate to them what is true about their own faith?

[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?

[Figueira]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You are all embarrassing yourselves. Please stop. Do it for Baby Jesus or the Prophet Mohammed or Great Aunt Doris, whoever.

[ingemann]

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.

[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.

[Blue3]

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

[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.