Is Islam a religion of peace , or is it inherently violent ?

aneeshm

Deity
Joined
Aug 26, 2001
Messages
6,666
Location
Mountain View, California, USA
For a very long time now ( at least seventeen years , which is my entire lifespan ) , the liberals in the USA , in India ( where I live ) and the makers of textbooks have repeatedly claimed that Islam is essentially a religion of peace .

It is my belief that history textbooks should not have any bias , and that all important events should be chronicled impartially and with accordance with the facts known at the time . This is why I find repulsive the censorship by the liberal textbook-makers of anything that does not fit with the spin they give to the textbook .

Again and again , with the same old phrases , have I heard the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace . And have not recieved a shred of proof to support this claim . When I enquired about how many were killed during the Crusades , I found the statistics wanting . This , in the same textbook which cites the statistics and even methods used by the Nazis for executing prisoners .

When we studied the Vijaynagar empire of Central India , we were told of its great prosperity and strength . It's decline was attributed to decay and the erosion of its greatest institutions . I learnt the real cause on Wikipedia - that an army of THREE neighbouring Muslim states ( much bigger in terms of land area ) defeated the Vijaynagaran army on the plain of Talikota , and that they proceeded to completely loot , raze , and depopulate the city over a period of time . This , to a city which compared favourably with the best cities in Europe at the time . The only thing that remain are huge ruins , covering hundreds of acres . Not even a village to mark the final place of death of what was arguably the world's greatest city at the time .

The multiple instances of Muslim intolerance and barbarism when engaged in conquest came home to me only when I read a book by a rather prominent Muslim historian , M.J. Akbar ( called "The Shade of Swords" , which explores jihad through the ages ) .



I have no objection to teachings which are essentially tolerant , but deliberately ignoring the facts of history is unethical and deserves condemnation .











Back to the point , who here thinks that Islam is essentially a peaceful religion ( please do not base this on the bahaviour of your Muslim friends , the tempering influence of Western civilisation cannot be ignored , and the Muslims who chose to historically leave their homelands were nto the average ) , or an inherently violent one , please state why you think so and what should be done about the glossing over of historical Muslim atrocities in the education system .
 
IMHO, all religions are ones of peace. Unless I'm mistaken, Jesus never said, "Go forth and kill!" Nor did Muhammad preach that flying into a tower, or sacking a city was the only way to uphold Islam. Nor is it one of the four goals of life for a Hindu to kill his or her neighbour. Nor is it one of the five pillars of Buddhism to blow one's self up. It's the people's leaders who bastardize a religion and choose selective quotes to turn their followers into violence. I can count off many atrocities committed by members of every faith.

What I'm getting at is this, yes I believe, in text Islam is as peaceful a religion as Christianity or Judaism is in text. However, leaders of Islamic people have misled their followers into acts of violence. This is true more so today than other religions.
 
aneeshm said:
Back to the point , who here thinks that Islam is essentially a peaceful religion ( please do not base this on the bahaviour of your Muslim friends , the tempering influence of Western civilisation cannot be ignored , and the Muslims who chose to historically leave their homelands were nto the average ) , or an inherently violent one , please state why you think so and what should be done about the glossing over of historical Muslim atrocities in the education system .
How do you define whether a religion is 'peaceful' or 'violent?' Based on it's history? Christianity does not look so good in that light. Even leaving the Crusades aside, how do you think the "Christian empires" of Europe conquered the New World? Through good works and faith? What about the Inquisition, or slavery? What about the persistent persecution of Jews throughout much of history? All of these were performed by good Christian men and women and justified through their faith. Does the fact that Christians have done such things mean Christianity is not an essentially peaceful religion? Or do you draw the line in some other fashion?
 
Islam is as peacefull as any other religion that combines pagan myths (Old Testament) with more modern ideas of a more integrated, equal and peacefull society (Jesus, Mohammed, others). it has the same contradictions as Christianiy has in its teaching and holy scripts. And also the same ambiguities.

But as opposed to Mein Kampf the bible and the Quran ask for forgivenes and help for enemies. So yes, peacefull - if correctly interpreted.
 
Some religons lend themselves to fanatisicm eaiser and some are easier to twist to suit the goals of certain people.

Also you may as well ask weather Christianity is evil or Buddhisim. None of of these are created with the purpose of violence in mind but they can be twisted to make it seem like that. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs have all killed in the name of religon. Does that make all these religons automatically evil? No
 
IMHO, any religion which has any evangelical character to it (and that includes both Islam and Chritianity) cannot be a religion of peace no matter how hard it tries. someone, somewhere will not agree with you and you will end up fighting.

However, if you are not evangelical you will die out eventually. Hence there is a dichotomy there.

Which means that any religion that has survived for long has necessarily not been always peaceful.
 
betazed said:
IMHO, any religion which has any evangelical character to it (and that includes both Islam and Chritianity) cannot be a religion of peace no matter how hard it tries. someone, somewhere will not agree with you and you will end up fighting.

However, if you are not evangelical you will die out eventually. Hence there is a dichotomy there.

Which means that any religion that has survived for long has necessarily not been always peaceful.
Exactly my view.
 
aneeshm said:
Back to the point , who here thinks that Islam is essentially a peaceful religion ( please do not base this on the bahaviour of your Muslim friends , the tempering influence of Western civilisation cannot be ignored , and the Muslims who chose to historically leave their homelands were nto the average ) , or an inherently violent one , please state why you think so and what should be done about the glossing over of historical Muslim atrocities in the education system .

Muslim atrocities? What about the Christian atrocities like how when the Christians entered Jereslum during the Crusades they killed every man, woman, and child in the city.
What about Hindu atrocities like the Gujrat riots or the tearing down of mosques and tombs of ancient Mughal warlords?

What exactly do you consider Muslim atrocities? Sucide bombings? Ancient conquests?
If you think those are atrocities then you must recognize similar atrocities carried out by people of other religons. The Tamil Tigers for example or the Christian fundementalists. How about them? They have one a equal number of terrible things as the Muslims have.
If you consider Islam evil then Christanity, Hinduisim, Sikhisim etc. must also be evil.


BTW. I am an atheist so I am not biased or favored to any religon.
 
aneeshm said:
When we studied the Vijaynagar empire of Central India , we were told of its great prosperity and strength . It's decline was attributed to decay and the erosion of its greatest institutions . I learnt the real cause on Wikipedia - that an army of THREE neighbouring Muslim states ( much bigger in terms of land area ) defeated the Vijaynagaran army on the plain of Talikota , and that they proceeded to completely loot , raze , and depopulate the city over a period of time . This , to a city which compared favourably with the best cities in Europe at the time . The only thing that remain are huge ruins , covering hundreds of acres . Not even a village to mark the final place of death of what was arguably the world's greatest city at the time .

You can list as many terrible things the Muslims did and I can match them with an equal number of terrible things the Christians did or the Hindus.
 
silver 2039 said:
You can list as many terrible things the Muslims did and I can match them with an equal number of terrible things the Christians did or the Hindus.


which will - if done - prove rather nicely that all these religions are fairly nasty!


duh!
 
Drunk Master said:
You recognise a tree by it's fruit.

Actually, you'll do quite well with the leaves and bark.
 
religion and violence...nice cocktail since Cain clubbed abel to death because he thought God was being unfairly "nice" to his brother:p

Back to the point though, aneeshm's question also lies on the fact that liberals, at least in India, are fanatics as well, mainly being composed of disgruntled commies and their ilk. They seem to be of the opinion that misinformation should be countered with more misinformation, and not a balanced version of both misinformation, better known as the Truth.

Sorry if I sound a bit cynical, but having studied Indian history at high school to University level, I have tended to treat history books, with a few notable exceptions, as no better than Bollywood (or Hollywood of you like) in print.

As for religion and violence, well, apart from the Jains, to a large extent most Buddhist sects, all religions tend to encourage violence. It must be noted here that religions per se don't encourage religion, as much as they are used by some followers to justify violence. Why? because you don't question the will of God unless you want to be at the recieving end of this violence:p

It is also important that religion must not be brought into the picture when it was not a factor at all inthe violence. The example here has been mentioned above.

The Vijayanagara Empire, frequently employed Muslim mercenaries, patronised Muslim art and had had normal relations with the surrounding Muslim states. Indeed the conflict between the Vijayanagara Empire and the surrounding Bahmani kingdoms was more of a land issue than religion. Ironically enough, the Bahmani kingdoms were annexed by a Muslim ruler..Akbar.

If the depredations on Vijayanagara are bad, then the accounts of Portuguese rule in Goa is worse. The wanton destruction of Hindu temples and religious art, was done in the name of religion in fact.

The truth, according to me is, religion is an extremely personal thing. God doesn't stop listening to you or loving you just because you call Him in a different way. To kill another just because he worships God differently, reflects more on you and your mind than God or religion.
 
I believe that all religion is inherently violent. If you believe in a religion you know that you are right and that you have a divine being on your side this then justify any act you might committ.
 
Islam is a religion where most of the supporters live in a place where they can be lied to constantly and manipulated for the political ideas of a few extremists. It's that simple.

Just like when Christians live under the same circumstances, they can be found doing similar things "in God's name".
 
Top Bottom