Is Islam a Religion of Peace? - Debate

[paulsterio]

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.

OK, it's not that relevant, but I just wanted to point that out.

Now, if we are adjusting the Quran to suit what we want, then how are we following a religion. I might as well say "oh hey, I'm a Muslim, I believe in nothing the Quran says, but I'm a Muslim cause I said so" - that's taking your argument to the extreme, yes, but it is a reasonable extreme - that at some point in time, everything will have changed to a point where Islam is no longer Islam.

Furthermore, how is there a "was" in the first place. Was stoning people and starting wars on other religions ever right? How does morality, what is right and what is wrong, change over time. How could you possibly say that right now, stoning people is right, but 1000 years later, stoning people is wrong?

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".

How can a book be open to such a wide range of interpretations. If the book says "start war on those who are not Muslims", there can only be two outcomes:

1) You don't follow the book and hence you aren't really a Muslim
2) You follow the book and you are, hence, not peaceful

I don't grasp this concept of interpretation. Yes, everything is open to interpretation, but how can one argue that a book which suggests war as a solution to a problem can be peaceful.

[abcdqdxD]

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.

Agreed.

[Special At Specialist]

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.

The difference is, our country (and pretty much all countries, for that matter) is founded on a changing social system where laws change as time progresses. Things are re-written to fit with social values and to be compatible with science.
Religion on the other hand, is based upon a book. This book never changes. It is supposedly "the word of God" and is thus recognised (by the followers of that religion) as being so perfect that it never needs to be altered in anyway at all. I think it is fair to say that whatever is written in that book can determine the ethos of a true Muslim (the same can be done with the bible and Christianity, for example).

[Water]

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.

Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, completion and bonding/joining.[17] In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".[18][19]

I am not sure what's your ulterior motive with playing the game of semantics, but you should be careful of being misleading here in characterizing Islam.

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.

For the rest of your posts; if the Islam was so bad as you paint them to be then history would image them to be ugly and despotic. If you looked at Ottoman Empire, Europe, and Russia, you'd see that the Ottoman Empire (Islam religion) were cultured people who communicated with other societies. So much for your 'lets decimate enemies of Islam' argument.

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.

Which comes to my next point, your tactic here is just nit-picking certain scripts, quotes and passages from the religion, and then painting the whole religion as ugly. Well, if you are going to play that game, lets do that for Christianity and to an extent Confucianism. Oh right? I forgot, this is a discussion about Islam, but we can totally disregard other religions because they are perfect.

Third Point, you take Al Qaeda to be a representative of majority. Did you know the nation of Iran was holding candles in the plight of America's 911? Ohh right, I forgot, you are selective in what you like to pick from Iran's history to accommodate with your argument.

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.

These are western values. There are always going to be culture clashes ANYWHERE. Just because X has these values, doesn't mean Y has those values. You are imposing your values on culture of Y when its been with them for thousands of year. I don't understand your point? Cultures evolve, it takes time.


Conclusion: There is an ulterior purpose to this post. Why debate Islam, when you can debate religions in general? The arguments are misleading and deceptive and attempts to demonize the religion of Islam.



Out of 10 Topic: Below Herald Sun Standard/10

[thushan]

"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." --> Eriny.

I would say that it is worth discussing for us, purely to make us aware of the different definitions of Islam and to show us that it is therefore difficult to generalise.

We don't have to resolve the definition - so long as we have a discussion of it and accept that multiple definitions of Islam exist.

@Paul: Your argument would make sense if the only definition of Islam is what is literally written in the Quran. Again, what other definitions of Islam exist, and why are each valid to an extent?

@Water - constructive, please! Aggression is not needed here.

[pi]

Now, if we are adjusting the Quran to suit what we want, then how are we following a religion. I might as well say "oh hey, I'm a Muslim, I believe in nothing the Quran says, but I'm a Muslim cause I said so" - that's taking your argument to the extreme, yes, but it is a reasonable extreme - that at some point in time, everything will have changed to a point where Islam is no longer Islam.

Did you even read my post? Everything NEEDS to be contextualized to make sense. There is NOT ONE Muslim who follows the Quran word-for-word as it was when it was written. NOT ONE. As times change, interpretations need to change. I don't see why you have a problem with this. Interpretations need to be adapted.

But if you disagree, feel free to say there are no "archaic" Muslims in the word and then you can lock the thread

Furthermore, how is there a "was" in the first place. Was stoning people and starting wars on other religions ever right? How does morality, what is right and what is wrong, change over time. How could you possibly say that right now, stoning people is right, but 1000 years later, stoning people is wrong?

The "was" is based on our morals TODAY. Morality changes due to a whole range of factors. I can guarantee that if you were raised by cows in your childhood you would have different morals to what you have now

As times change, what becomes commonplace changes, and hence what people perceives is the norm changes, hence morals change.

How can a book be open to such a wide range of interpretations. If the book says "start war on those who are not Muslims", there can only be two outcomes:

1) You don't follow the book and hence you aren't really a Muslim
2) You follow the book and you are, hence, not peaceful

I don't grasp this concept of interpretation. Yes, everything is open to interpretation, but how can one argue that a book which suggests war as a solution to a problem can be peaceful.

All I can say is that this is a very ignorant view of how religion actually works.

[DisaFear]

Keep in mind, verses were 'revealed' in bunches or by themselves, for situations. It's not like a book magically appeared one day, outlining all the rules. "Hey you, go kill everyone"

They have context.

Kill all non-believers isn't just kill all non-believers. It could have been in a time of oppression.

Ask a scholar who has spent 10 years of his life studying the religion, and he can tell you what's for what

[brenden]

Apparently 16 new posts have been posted while I was writing. I'm going to post anyway because I'd hate to have wasted all that time. I'll start reading through now.


Thush I've decided not to answer your question in this post as I'm not directly rebutting Paul's. In the event that I do then I will for clarity's sake.
My question to Paul is, what separates Islam in your mind from other religions? In asking "Is Islam a Religion of Peace" you could just as easily be asking "Is Religion as an umbrella term, peaceful?" In debating this topic I believe we won't get very far at all. People 'for' will quote many violent verses and people 'against' will quote peaceful ones. We can do this for many religions.


Ezekiel 9:6 “Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women . . . “
Isaiah 13:16 “Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.”
Deuteronomy 13:15 “Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly . . .
We could talk about Lot sacrificing his daughters for the safety of Angels, Abraham's readiness to sacrifice his own son and the invasion of Sodom (with many parallels with Tibet and China methinks)
Why are you specifically interested in the peace of Islam?


-> Okay I'm going to comb the post. Thushan  to answer your question 'Islam' is nothing more or less than a concept. We can't possibly agree on a uniform definition - we couldn't for any religion. Some would say it is the Koran word for word and some would say it is a 'peaceful way of life' much like Buddhism. All interpretations of the Koran must constitute Islam as the writers aren't here to clarify this for us. Unfortunately this fact means anyone can basically spin any amount of bullshit and any religious leader can do what they please with their selected texts, much as we can spin bullshit in our English essays. Thus, I think for the purpose of this debate we must rebut each other's posts within the context of the post we are rebutting. If someone wants to consider a holistic interpretation of the Koran then they are open to rebuttals from any part of the book, eg peaceful quotes or contradictory quotes. To agree on a definition of Islam or any religion would probably be impossible. Many people might call Tony Abbott a Christian but within my definition of Christianity he may as well be the anti-christ. 

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.

This is open to interpretation. In typing 'islam definition' into Google (this is my version of research) every hit I get says it refers to the submission or surrender of oneself to God which IMO is not inherently peaceful or violent, it just IS, and this can be said for most religions. (And yes that statement is entirely unsubstantiated but I think we can agree the underlying principle of any religion is the acceptance of a dogma and the recognition of and submission to a higher power).

In 2012, there were multiple protests and heightened violence from many Muslims in response to an anti-Islamic video posted on Youtube.

This and the examples above this in the OP are pertaining only to the people who adopt the religion, which doesn't necessarily mean the religion is in itself violent. Any past religious post on AN will have something to do with "blah blah religion is part of their identities blah blah" --> these are examples of fundamentally (not entirely literally or we'd have people sacrificing doves and shit) religious people who hold values that basically contravene any sensible (yes, subjective word, I know) person's perception of morality. For any one of these examples of a religion's followers turning violent I could find an equal number of examples of the same religion's followers preaching peace and shaming those who are violent. So if we're focusing on the followers of a religion to determine said religion's inherent peace or violence then that's a null point because there will always be balance in the way people act and ultimately, their own actions are up to them. If you can dig me up an example of someone that has been quite calm and said "Well, I don't like this one bit, but I'm going to have to kill this guy because he spoke out against my religion purely because my holy book says so  even though I entirely don't want to" then I'll concede entirely.

How does one follow the teachings of the Quran and call oneself not violent?

Follow the peaceful teachings and live peacefully. There are more than 50% of people that are Muslim in my school. I'm sure every one would say they follow the teachings of the Koran. I'd call most non-violent.
On the "terrorists are violent so Islam is violent point" -> I don't give the point any credit at all. They're terrorists. Of course they're going to be violent. They have a hugely literal interpretation of the Koran. Who knows why this is? Perhaps this is enabled by a theocracy. If there were people that took the Bible with a literal interpretation then Jesus Christ (no pun intended) this country wouldn't be safe.


On the equality of women argument - yes there are verses in the Koran that promote misogyny but the crux of that segment of your argument is focused, perhaps unconsciously, on the culture and legal system of the theocracies you have mentioned. Whilst not entirely equal this is like saying the high prevalence of rape in South Africa is due to the high prevalence of Christianity which isn't the case. Malaysia is a largely Muslim nation but has been trying to increase gender equality through legislation and social attitudes. Like, >50% of people at my school are Muslim, but perhaps around 40% would be from the Middle East. My school captain is a gorgeous girl and a close friend of mine, doesn't wear the hijab, wears high-heels and dresses, drinks alcohol (her family migrated from Malaysia, btw) but I still went to her house for Ramadan in September.

Thushan - not exactly a KP style of debate but I think I've kept it critical.

[Special At Specialist]

Actually physiks I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

Some things are written so clearly that there is no need to contextualise them to make sense. For example, the statement "the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides of any right-angled triangle" is true IN ALL CASES. There is no such thing as taking this "out of context" because it is a generalisation that is always going to be true.

In the same way, when the Qur'an picks out a specific group of people (let's label them X) and says that "all X's should be stoned to death", is there really much you can take out of context from that? It seems to be pretty clear that the Qur'an followers WANT all X's to be stoned to death.

And if they don't follow the Qur'an, then they're not a true Muslim. It's as simple as that.

[paulsterio]

Did you even read my post? Everything NEEDS to be contextualized to make sense. There is NOT ONE Muslim who follows the Quran word-for-word as it was when it was written. NOT ONE. As times change, interpretations need to change. I don't see why you have a problem with this. Interpretations need to be adapted.

But if you disagree, feel free to say there are no "archaic" Muslims in the word and then you can lock the thread

The "was" is based on our morals TODAY. Morality changes due to a whole range of factors. I can guarantee that if you were raised by cows in your childhood you would have different morals to what you have now

As times change, what becomes commonplace changes, and hence what people perceives is the norm changes, hence morals change.

Again, how can you possibly justify that starting wars on those who are not Muslims was ever right? It's written in the Quran quite literally. And no, morals do not change over time, something that is right will always be right and something that is wrong will always be wrong.

The world is not an idealistic place, the world moves towards being more idealistic - more towards what we call moral. For example, "killing is wrong" is something which is quite moral. How have we changed to achieve that moral? We have introduced laws against murder, we have abolished the death penalty...etc.

It's not an issue of morals adapting to the world, it's the world and people adapting to get closer to moral ideals.

All I can say is that this is a very ignorant view of how religion actually works.

Well you can only follow or not follow a certain religious teaching. You can't just follow those that suit you.

It's like saying, OK, let me start a new religion, it's called religion X.

I teach 4 things:

1) Never cheat
2) Never steal
3) Always be honest
4) Start war on those who do not follow religion X

Now you can either follow religion X, which means following all of my teachings, or not fully following religion X, just following the things you agree with. If everyone just followed what they wanted, why do we even have religion in the first place.

No matter how you argue it, you can only end up with two groups of people, those who follow the teachings of religion X (and hence are violence due to (4)) and those who do not follow all of the teachings of religion X, and hence, cannot be included in our discussion.

LASTLY, I did not single out Islam, the reason for this was because I had done so much research on Islam following a previous post and only felt comfortable discussing Islam as opposed to other religions, but feel free to discuss others.

[pi]

And no, morals do not change over time, something that is right will always be right and something that is wrong will always be wrong.

I'm sorry, but this is ignorance at it's height. I cannot continue.

I hope you realise that by increased time, increased knowledge is inferred and of course morals will change if that is the case.

But I seriously can't continue if you have this stance, it's simply wrong.

[paulsterio]

Name something today that is not right and argue how it can be possibly considered right in the future.

[Thu Thu Train]

Name something today that is not right and argue how it can be possibly considered right in the future.

Gay marriage

[thushan]

And no, morals do not change over time, something that is right will always be right and something that is wrong will always be wrong.

I'm sorry, but this is ignorance at it's height. I cannot continue.

Hey dude, continue - we will stay ignorant if discussion doesn't continue. If you see ignorance, counter it.

[DisaFear]

Name something today that is not right and argue how it can be possibly considered right in the future.

'Right' depends upon the person.
Do you think drugs are good? I think drugs are horrible.
Why does everyone in 'Brave New World', our future utopia, do drugs then?

(I think that's how it went, didn't it?)