Is Islam a Religion of Peace? - Debate

[paulsterio]

Last time I tried to debate this, I was banned from the forums before I had the chance to backup my points of view with specific and detailed evidence, something which I'm seriously disappointed in. I was also labelled many undesirable things as well as being called out for making "sweeping generalisations". So I am now back to defend my stance.

However, I wish to restart this debate as it's something which interests me and because I don't think this topic has ever been properly debated before on ATARNotes without shit being thrown at eachother.


Now, my argument is that Islam is not a "Religion of Peace".

First of all, before we even get onto the crux of the issue, let's talk about what is Islam - from my research, "Islam" comes from the word "al-Slim" which means submission or surrender, not really my definition of peace.

The Quran's teachings are often well debated but there are multiple verses which suggest violence and in some ways, even idealises and promotes it. There are many verses which promote violence against those who are not Muslims including:

“Verily, those who disbelieve, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah (i.e. Islam); then die while they are disbelievers, Allah will not forgive them.[34]
So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.[35]”

Fight against those who
(1) believe not in Allah,
(2) nor in the Last Day,
(3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger
(4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [29]
And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! [30]”

“Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).[38]
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.[39]”

Even apart from the teachings of violence, there are multiple real-world examples of how violent Islam as a religion can be.

In 2001, Hashem Aghajari, who is an Iranian professor, was sentenced to death because of a speech which criticiesed Islamic practices in Islam.
Many who research the history of the Quran and speak out against it, such as Christoph Luxenberg have worked under a pseudonym to protect himself.
Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker was assassinated for making an anti-Islamic film relating to the treatment of women.
The Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set on fire after newspapers in those countries published anti-Islamic cartoons.
Robert Redeker was threatened after speaking out against Islam.
The Iran-Iraq war was a war of religious ideals.
In 2012, there were multiple protests and heightened violence from many Muslims in response to an anti-Islamic video posted on Youtube.


Islamic terrorist organisations, such as Al-Qaeda, have stated multiple times that they wish to advamce Islamist goals - such as overthrowing Arab regimes which are insufficiently religious and stopping the American support for Israel. Islamic terrorists have spoken out on their drive to terror:

"Another aim and objective of jihad is to drive terror in the hearts of the [infidels]. To terrorize them. Did you know that we were commanded in the Qur'an with terrorism? ...Allah said, and prepare for them to the best of your ability with power, and with horses of war. To drive terror in the hearts of my enemies, Allah's enemies, and your enemies. And other enemies which you don't know, only Allah knows them... So we were commanded to drive terror into the hearts of the [infidels], to prepare for them with the best of our abilities with power. Then the Prophet said, nay, the power is your ability to shoot. The power which you are commanded with here, is your ability to shoot. Another aim and objective of jihad is to kill the [infidels], to lessen the population of the [infidels]... it is not right for a Prophet to have captives until he makes the Earth warm with blood... so, you should always seek to lessen the population of the [infidels]."[96]

Essentially, what we can see from the plight of these terrorists is that they are obsessed with propagating Islamic culture, society and values in opposition to the influences of non-Muslims and the Western world in particular. Such a way of dealing with issues is primitive, medieval, violent and based on the teachings of the Quran.

My question for this first section of my argument is:
How does one follow the teachings of the Quran and call oneself not violent? The very core of the teachings are that of non-peace


Now, on from war, let's talk about the issues of violence against women, which is something I also believe Islam is guilty of.

First of all, on the issue of cloting - the wearing of a veil, hijab or burqa in itself sets a precedence for the difference between men and women. The fact that women are required, by law, to wear veils shows how serious the issue of inequality is. In many countries, such as Iran, women who do not wear the veil in public can be put in jail. In most other Arab countries, they can be fined heavily.

Quoting the Quran:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard."

This clearly emphasises the dominance of men over women and hints at superiority. Furthermore, women are also discriminated against by law in countries which are Islamic theocracies. The status of a woman's testimony in Islam is usually questioned - in some countries, two women's words are considered equal to one man's - meaning that one man has more "legal right" than one woman and reasons for this include: women's temperament, lack of interest in legal matters...etc. which are all discriminatory.

Anyways, I'm tired now and must go off and do some stuff, so debate on, and I'll come back with some more evidence and points after I've showered.

Debate away guys!

[pi]

Is relating to the video link you posted Paul?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh34Xsq7D_A&feature=related

I actually watched the whole of it and found it very interesting. Personally I agreed with those forwarding the motion, as I felt their (Maajid Nawaz mainly) point on contextualization was a very key one.


Either way

[Russ]

Zero tolerance thread for shitposting fyi

[thushan]

Word of warning: This topic has been debated numerous times. Given that this topic is specifically about whether Islam is a religion of peace and focuses on it, and that stifling of discussion leads to ignorance, I'd say discuss this topic again.

HOWEVER. Please be constructive. Attack the arguments CONSTRUCTIVELY. Aggression is NOT necessary and does not help your case, people will read and accept/critique your points if you are neutral about it. There is absolutely NO need to belittle anyone else if they have an opinion. If anyone goes out of line, they will be banned.

If this thread gets heated and people become aggressive, I will first warn, then I will lock this topic if it keeps going.

It will be a shame if discussion threads like this have to be locked, because it will show that we, as a community, cannot constructively discuss and debate a point without things getting heated.

If you want an example of constructive feedback, look at the way EZ and kingpomba argue.

The first question we should ask is - what IS Islam? What do we define as Islam? Is it the Quran, word for word? Is it specific parts of the Quran? What interpretations of the Quran count as 'Islam?'

Discuss this point first and agree to a definition, before we move on to critique Paul's post. Without discussion of this point, we might be mixing up apples and oranges.

[VivaTequila]

Everybody should read Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. Her introduction states something along the lines of "I wouldn't want my nation to be judged on the actions of a select few fundamentalists".

She isn't violent, and I don't think that all muslims are violent. Some are notably placid chillers.

The pitfall of this argument is that everything is up to interpretation. Everybody takes a different meaning for the words in the Q. So I'm skeptical that you'll get particularly far with this argument, but by all means, go for it. It'll be interesting to read/watch.

[thushan]

"The pitfall of this argument is that everything is up to interpretation. Everybody takes a different meaning for the words in the Q. So I'm skeptical that you'll get particularly far with this argument, but by all means, go for it. It'll be interesting to read/watch"

Exactly. This is why we need to determine - which of these interpretations count as Islam, and which don't? If there is an interpretation of the Quran that is not deemed to be "Islam," then we cannot consider this interpretation at all in determining whether Islam is a religion of peace.

[excal]

Let me re-frame the question - do the traits of a religion depend on the unique characteristics of the society(ies) which incubate said religion? Or does a society draw attributes from religious dogma? Classic chicken and egg problem.

I think there's too much focus on Islam as a religion versus the cultural aspects that drove the development, and drive the current interpretation, of religious belief.

[DisaFear]

First of all, before we even get onto the crux of the issue, let's talk about what is Islam - from my research, "Islam" comes from the word "al-Slim" which means submission or surrender, not really my definition of peace.

Pretty sure religion is all about submission to God. This has nothing to do with anything.

[Special At Specialist]

The first question we should ask is - what IS Islam? What do we define as Islam? Is it the Quran, word for word? Is it specific parts of the Quran? What interpretations of the Quran count as 'Islam?'

I think that Islam is about submission to the Muslim god, Allah. A true Muslim would take everything in the Qur'an literally, otherwise they are just picking out bits and pieces of it. If they don't take everything literally, then they could choose whatever they want to be metaphorical and it will usually end up in every Muslim having a different interpretation to one another.

Of course, there are a few contradictions in the Qur'an, thus making it logically impossible to take everything literal at once, but sometimes you just need to be a little ignorant in order to keep your identity as a follower of a specific religion.

It is without a doubt that Islam and Christianity are the two most violent religions on the planet. Think about all of the jihads and holy wars that have been purely religious based. The difference is that Islam is about 500 years behind Christianity. Muslims nowadays act in a similar way to what Christians used to act in the 1500's. They take a lot of offense to blasphemy and even have laws to prevent it from taking place. They treat women as second class citizens and they treat anyone who is different from them as "infidels". Most of their beliefs are quite archaic in those aspects.

Nevertheless, sometimes it is their picking and choosing of the Qur'an that makes them less violent than they appear. Many Muslims, particularly those living in non-Muslim countries, are much more sympathetic to "infidels" and will not simply stone them to death like the Qur'an tells them to. From that perspective, it is actually a good thing that not every Muslim takes the Qur'an literally, even if that does make them less of a Muslim.

But in summary, the "true" Muslims which take every piece of the Qur'an literally are not the peaceful ones.

[paulsterio]

Well, dilmah, the question I often pose is, how does a book, i.e. the Quran, get interpreted so widely that some can argue it teaches peace while others can argue it teaches war? What does this say about the integrity of this book and more importantly, how is this even possible?

Can a single teaching be violent and non-violent at the same time?

Pretty sure religion is all about submission to God. This has nothing to do with anything.

Buddhism?

I think that Islam is about submission to the Muslim god, Allah. A true Muslim would take everything in the Qur'an literally, otherwise they are just picking out bits and pieces of it. If they don't take everything literally, then they could choose whatever they want to be metaphorical and it will usually end up in every Muslim having a different interpretation to one another.

Of course, there are a few contradictions in the Qur'an, thus making it logically impossible to take everything literal at once, but sometimes you just need to be a little ignorant in order to keep your identity as a follower of a specific religion.

It is without a doubt that Islam and Christianity are the two most violent religions on the planet. Think about all of the jihads and holy wars that have been purely religious based. The difference is that Islam is about 500 years behind Christianity. Muslims nowadays act in a similar way to what Christians used to act in the 1500's. They take a lot of offense to blasphemy and even have laws to prevent it from taking place. They treat women as second class citizens and they treat anyone who is different from them as "infidels". Most of their beliefs are quite archaic in those aspects.

Nevertheless, sometimes it is their picking and choosing of the Qur'an that makes them less violent than they appear. Many Muslims, particularly those living in non-Muslim countries, are much more sympathetic to "infidels" and will not simply stone them to death like the Qur'an tells them to. From that perspective, it is actually a good thing that not every Muslim takes the Qur'an literally, even if that does make them less of a Muslim.

But in summary, the "true" Muslims which take every piece of the Qur'an literally are not the peaceful ones.

I know we have had our differences in the past, but I fully agree with you here, we cannot change the interpretation of a book to suit our needs and arguments, the true Muslims are those who follow the Quran literally.

[spectroscopy]

Everybody should read Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. Her introduction states something along the lines of "I wouldn't want my nation to be judged on the actions of a select few fundamentalists".

if you read the quotes from the OP you will see that its the terrorists that are following the quran properly and the majority that arent.

the quotes in the OP, provided they are from the Quran and correct word for word, proves the religion isnt peaceful, there is no "turn the other cheek" like in christianity, or "ask for forgiveness and be truly sorry and you shall be forgiven for i am a merciful lord", they basically say "if you dont believe in allah and fight for him you go to hell no excuses"

[pi]

First of all, before we even get onto the crux of the issue, let's talk about what is Islam - from my research, "Islam" comes from the word "al-Slim" which means submission or surrender, not really my definition of peace.

I think this is largely irrelevant. Your name means "small". My name "signifies the color red". Now how relevant is that?

As for your quotes on scripture, I agree largely with Maajid Nawaz's stance in the video. The Quran has many interpretations, just like the American Constitution. Now, the American Constitution was written back in the day when slavery was commonplace, does that mean they should  base their interpretations of it NOW based on that era? Of course not! Similarly with the Quran, if you want to quote scripture and relate it to how it implied back when it was written, then you're not at all contextualizing it for today, and hence are only addressing the question "Was Islam a religion of peace in the past?" rather than your proposed topic.

Similarly, Al-Qaeda is making the same mistake as you. They are not contextualizing the verses from the Quran at all. They wonder how Islam has lost territory, has fallen from it's glory days. So what's their solution? "Maybe let's just go back to what we did back when we could kick ass and win wars". And YOU are using that to JUSTIFY that Islam TODAY is not peaceful? Based on their archaic interpretation? Based on an interpretation that 90-something% of Muslims today reject? Wow.

As much as I disagree with the notion that Men are more powerful than Women as described in the Quran, I can't see how that also infers the religion is not peaceful. I mean, we all know that that attitude is not a good one at all (in fact, it's terrible!), but we should also know that things are improving. Women are becoming more educated as we speak.

I know we have had our differences in the past, but I fully agree with you here, we cannot change the interpretation of a book to suit our needs and arguments, the true Muslims are those who follow the Quran literally.

No-one in the entire world does this. So what's your point? Obviously it must be contextualized to account for the modern era.

[thushan]

It is without a doubt that Islam and Christianity are the two most violent religions on the planet. Think about all of the jihads and holy wars that have been purely religious based. The difference is that Islam is about 500 years behind Christianity. Muslims nowadays act in a similar way to what Christians used to act in the 1500's. They take a lot of offense to blasphemy and even have laws to prevent it from taking place. They treat women as second class citizens and they treat anyone who is different from them as "infidels". Most of their beliefs are quite archaic in those aspects.

Irrelevant to this debate if you are assuming that we are taking a literal definition of Islam (Quran, word for word).

But in summary, the "true" Muslims which take every piece of the Qur'an literally are not the peaceful ones.

OK, so your definition of Islam is those who take the Quran literally.

Others' opinions to this definition?

[Eriny]

What kind of question is that? Is Australia a country of peace? Are chairs objects of peace? Does 'peace' actually just mean non-violence? That's not the dictionary definition of peace. Also, the word 'peace' doesn't always necessarily translate well into other languages, always a danger if you are criticising a religion which is so tied to another language and translations are never going to be completely satisfactory.

Few things are inherently anything. There's nothing, for instance, in the biology or geology of a country that makes it conform to certain values or properties, it's just indifferent. Likewise. any holy book is just a book, it doesn't really matter what it says, what matters is how people use it/interpret it. The pages really could be blank for the amount people are sometimes inclined to read in to certain things and not others. There are so many different interpretations and so many different religious practices that it IS a "sweeping generalisation" to make a claim like "Islam is a religion of peace" or "Islam is not a religion of peace". There are people who identify as Muslim who are peaceful, if you don't think they're really Muslim then who cares? Mind your own business. People (some of whom actually know what they are talking about, most of whom don't) argue over what constitutes and defines Islam and what doesn't, these arguments are unresolved, we aren't going to resolve them here, especially not in the context of a huge amount of Islamophobia that exists in the world and especially in Australia.

Nothing constructive can come of this thread or its inflammatory set-up.

[spectroscopy]

But in summary, the "true" Muslims which take every piece of the Qur'an literally are not the peaceful ones.

OK, so your definition of Islam is those who take the Quran literally.

Others' opinions to this definition?

quran says that multiple times using pretty much the same words, so yes, true muslims are ones who follow the quran literally as the word of god, mohammed being his messenger,