Is Islam a religion of peace?

Unfortunately, most if not all monotheistic religions seem to be setup extremely well, to provide a foundation for intolerance, hatred and their friend: violence.

Not if they follow Sharia Law, no. There are peaceful people of Islam, though.

Modern day jihadis as represented by Hamas, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lasker-E-Tobia, Al Bader, Tehreek-E-Jihad, Hizbul Mujahideen, Hezballah etc. and now the Tsarnaev brothers will continue Islam’s long practice of intimidation, violence, forceful conversion and terrorism long past my lifetime.

The fact that many modern day Muslims are not violent simply disguises the danger in the words of The Prophet. The fact that only a very few Muslims will publicly denounce jihadist violence is evidence that it is dangerous.

And the fact that an argument can be made that all mystical faiths have the potential to inspire irrational violence does not make Islam therefore a religion of peace.

My answer is no.

Seems to me to be really intolerant, and the idea of peace here is if everyone who doesn’t comply is dead. Plus it’s also a really radical religion. I’m not sure how blowing up children or chopping off heads is peaceful.

Well, I agree with this idea that so-called “Islamic extremists” aren’t necessarily just crazed loons whose actions have nothing to do with the “true Islam” (whatever that even means). The extremists’ interpretations don’t come out of nowhere, and the fact that Islam seems to breed extremism so well indicates that these interpretations are not limited to a small group of people and that many of them are probably valid.

Bill Maher was making this point Friday night. I’m not educated enough to speak from authority. But when religious leaders and imams can issue a deadly fatwa and no one seems to be able to overrule it, or even speak out against it, it is plainly structured to encourage violence.

Well said, @josie.

Islam is a religion and I wouldn’t brand it as anything else. That is what extremists try to do. It is no better and no worse than other religions. “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye”.

@flutherother I am not going to discount the evils done by Christendom in religion’s name, but Islam does not have an equivalent to “if someone slaps you on the cheek, turn and offer the other cheek.”

I’ve been watching the debate video you posted and I find it very interesting. One of the main points that Hitchens seems to be making is that Muslim leaders do not come out and speak against the violence committed in the name of Islam. The Ayatollah of Iran called for the death of Salman Rushdie in a fatwa—I hardly think the Ayatollah of Iran was a “small minority” in Islam. It’s these kind of things coming from authoritative Muslim figures who have great power that cause people to see Islam as a religion of violence.

Thanks to all who have and will answer. My thoughts on it are posted here in answer to @josie’s question, “Why do people find it hard to distinguish between jihadis and other people who commit acts of terrorism?”

Don’t judge by religion, judge by personalities of individuals. Religion is simply a belief shared by many individuals, personalities of such individuals have nothing to do with religion. I don’t know why people love to link actions to religion. Sure, some claim that their actions are dictated by religion, but if that’s how you view every bad person in the world, then all types of religion would be bad.

The thing is, debating about whether a religion is ‘good or bad’ does not and will not change or affect people who believe in it. They’re wired like that.

The world has both good and the bad, in every ‘religion’, ‘culture’, ‘country’. Everything, really.

I think people who judge religions without having experienced the lifestyle or at least were ever in contact with people who withheld the belief are shallow. Never judge what you lack knowledge in.

No religion would ever promote violence. It’s all about a person’s morals and standards.

“Muslim leaders do not come out and speak against the violence committed in the name of Islam.” REALLY good point @DominicX

@Luiveton “No religion would ever promote violence”

And you’re basing this on what, exactly?

Of course some would promote violence, @Luiveton. Before Jesus came to preach peace, the Bible was FULL of violence against those who didn’t believe.

No religion would ever promote violence. It’s all about a person’s morals and standards.

Merp.

As belief systems, religions can promote a whole lot of things, especially when they’re directly imbedded in one’s life, say like Christianity used to be not even 200 years ago. When religion is part of your culture, it can shape a lot of things.
Violence has been a part of a lot of religions’ histories, and still is in a lot of places. :/ Maybe promoted is not the right word, but something close to it, in a lot of cases.

Religion is also about a need to be right, and to be acknowledged as right. Some people get violent if people tell them they may be wrong.

On logic. Why the hell would a religion promote violence? What’s the point? It all falls down to how certain people think. But not a whole religion.

Crimes and assassinations are carried out all the time all around the world, by different people with different religions, doesn’t really mean their religion promotes violence. They do.

Obviously I’m not justifying what they did, I’m just saying that you can’t deem a religion as violent just because people decide they want to act irrationally.

Look at those people in the picture…They don’t represent a whole religion.

Anyway this is my opinion, I respect your opinions obviously. I simply don’t agree with everything you have to say.

I think the best way to determine whether or not a religion promotes violence is to look at the religion’s authority—that is, in the case of Islam and many other religions, the holy texts. You necessarily say a religion promotes violent because people who follow that religion are violent, but you can say it promotes violence if you find it in the religion’s holy texts. And I think the reason a religion might promote violence is a very important one: control.

I’m a bigtime critic of Harris, and I’ve seen him crushed in debates pertaining to near death experiences. I also feel that his attack on faith in general is a little overkill and flawed. However, I agree with him when it comes to many monotheistic religions in that they fight free thought and create the foundation of ignorance, intolerance, self righteousness and violence.

@Luiveton “No religion would ever promote violence. It’s all about a person’s morals and standards.” What planet did you just arrive from?

Here’s a long list of GOdly commands to violence from the Old Testament. This would pertain to Jews and Christians alike.

Then there were the Crusades, the Inquisition, burning heretics at the stake, the Witch Trials, neocolonialism with its destruction and enslavement of native cultures, slavery justified by scripture. Even today, the Catholic Church is ensuring massive suffering and death in the third world by fighting the use on condoms to contain the spread of AIDS and spreading lies that condoms make AIDS transmission more likely. The Pope is putting the very survival of humanity at risk for more riches for the Catholic Church’s obscenely bloated coffers by insisting Catholics reproduce like rabbits in a world already plagued by global warming, air and water pollution, and resource depletion. And today’s far-right fundamentalists are feverishly working to promote Armageddon on the Temple Mount so Jesus will appear in the clouds and carry them up to heaven.

I’ve already noted in references in the OP all the verses in the Koran where Mohammed endorses and commands violence. Did you not bother to check on any of that?

And then there is all the violence around the world between people of different religions or differing sects within one religion. Religion has a 5,000 year history of fomenting death, hatred and destruction.

Since the OP was about Sam Harris, I’d refer you to this in answer to your false assertion.

No.

Yes and no.

Yes, at its core, the Islamic faith is very tolerant of other faiths and beliefs when it is based on particular interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah. The Islamic faith can be very intolerant of other faiths and beliefs when it is based on a different set of interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah. Within the Muslim world we see a struggle between these two kinds of interpretations. Ignoring the troubling interpretations would be irresponsible. Their existence is a fact.

Muslims need to acknowledge that mainstream Islam is in urgent need of reform. It is not just a problem of a tiny violent minority. The Quran needs an interpretation that works in the 21st century. Islam has to go through the same painful process as Christianity did, going from burning witches and scientists to supporting the declaration of universal human rights.

@whitenoise

People who criticize Christianity don’t need police protection.

People who criticize Islam do.

Christianity experienced a reformation. Judaism experienced a reformation. Islam didn’t, at least so far. But there are a lot of good proposals out there how to reform Islam. But people who make these proposals or support these proposals are threatened by violence.

@josie – I agree with most of what you wrote. But here you are wrong I think:

The fact that only a very few Muslims will publicly denounce jihadist violence is evidence that it is dangerous.

Instead my perception is this: The fact that only a very few Muslims publicly denounce non-militant Islamism. The fact that only a very few Muslims publicly demand reform of Islam. Denouncing jihadist violence, which happens very often, is not good enough.

@DominicX – Well said! The fact that Islam seems to breed extremism so well indicates that these interpretations are indeed not limited to a small group of people. Worldwide we are facing the problem of several 100 million non-militant Islamists. They sincerely believe that Islamic law supersedes laws created by elected representatives. They believe in the superiority of Islam and endorse the idea that non-Muslims are disbelievers. They believe that people who print the Danish cartoons should be killed. The only difference: These non-militant Islamist are not capable of inflicting violence. A lot of effort is required to turn these people into militant Islamists.

Politicians focus on militant Islamists, overlooking the problem of non-militant Islamists.

@mattbrowne

I like it.

@mattbrowne Thanks for bringing some insightful discussion to bear on this. Well said.

This, from @mattbrowne, is very thought provoking: “The Quran needs an interpretation that works in the 21st century.” (emphasis mine.)

Perhaps it is true that Islam belongs more to the Middle Ages than the 21st Century but if is going to change it will have to change from within and the change will have to come from Muslims. Criticism that comes from outside the faith, any faith, usually just has the effect of reinforcing existing opinions.

@flutherother – I totally agree and I said so in some of the other threads. The change has to come from Muslims, from people like Irshad Manji. It’s a good thing that most Islamists are not aware how influential she already is. Her two books written in English are available as free pdf downloads in other languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Malay and Indonesian languages and there are already more than half a million downloads for Arabic alone.

But as non-Muslims we can still do two things:

1) Encourage and support the Muslims who demand reform
2) Adopt a zero tolerance attitude for non-militant Islamists

In Germany it is a crime to form groups that want to abolish democracy and our constitution, which gives us a legal basis to persecute non-militant Islamists. In the meantime almost all larger mosques are being observed by an undercover agents. The trigger was the Hamburg Al-Qaeda cell in 2001 preparing for 911 going unnoticed. Non-militant Islamism breeds militant Islamism. One out of 100 to 500 Islamists eventually becomes violent. Most mosques spread peaceful messages, but every now and then some don’t and we need to know.

We need to focus on the first step of radicalization, when a mainstream Muslim becomes a non-militant Islamist. Any religious talk that contradicts our Western values must be met with fierce opposition from our side. Any belittling of the Sharia (‘we just use it as family law to settle disputes’) must be met with fierce opposition from our side. Our countries must be completely Sharia free. There is only one institution allowed to make laws: we the people when we elect our representatives. The Sharia was invented 1000 years ago and it violates everything we hold dear in the West. It is cruel. It discriminates people. It is actually the Sharia which contains a law that says criticizing Islam is a crime.

You mean “Adopt a zero tolerance attitude for non militant Islamists,” right?

@Dutchess_III

I suggest that you should re read the previous post. It is a good one, with a point too important to miss.

@mattbrowne I think this is where you’re going to lose a lot of people who have been agreeing with you up to now. I don’t see how 1) and 2) are in any way compatible.

That was my thought @glacial,....Well I think his point is that being a peaceful Muslim is good, but when they convert to Islam, that’s the first step toward eventually becoming a militant Islamist.

What is a Muslim who does not already adhere to Islam? Can there be such a person?

Hell, I don’t know!

To be honest, @glacial, I have been mulling that idea over in my head for a few days. Not to offend or stroke anyone, but is it like some of the Jellies here who claim their Jewish heritage and call themselves Jewish, all the while professing no belief in the Abrahamic God and/or any God at all? Or some of those who say they are Christians but seem to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that suits them? Can you be a Muslim and not hold to all the tenents of Islam?

@bkcunningham I think Judaism is one of the few instances in which it is entirely possible to claim the heritage and reject the religion – the term Jewish can refer to one or the other. This is not really true of Islam or Muslims, as far as I’m aware. It may be that @mattbrowne is trying to say exactly that – that they can retain the name without the religion. But perhaps I have misunderstood what he was saying.

@mattbrowne In Germany it is a crime to form groups that want to abolish democracy and our constitution, which gives us a legal basis to persecute non-militant Islamists. I hope you meant prosecute and not persecute. Again, the problem I see is that given what Mohammed passed down in the Koran, and the authority he claimed for it, you can’t rationally believe his message but act like a 21st century Westerner.

@glacial I think that Matt Browne assumes that since so many Christians today disregard very large portions of their holy text, that’s equally acceptable for Muslims. Actually, it’s equally prohibited for both faiths, but for some reasons, Christians set that aside while still claiming to believe what their scriptures say because their scriptures are the Word of God and say it. At least, Islam remains true to their ridiculous belief system.

Respectfully, some of you folks might be confusing the terms Muslim, and Islamist.

Islamism is a particular system of thought within the Faith. It is the Islamists who vocally advocate murder in the name of The Prophet. But it is not for the Prophet that they do it. It is to do damage or eliminate Western ideas that they do it. It is the Islamists who think that their failing civilization would thrive again if only these pesky Westerners, and their secular governments, and peculiar ideas about women’ rights and universal education would simply die.

It may or may not have anything to do with the Koran, but all of the adherents of Islamism are Muslims.

It is Islamism that is the danger, not the universe of practicing Muslims.

But if the world is going to get along with Islam, then practitioners of Islam are going to have to do chip in and do something about the Islamists in their midst. Not all Islamists actually set off bombs. But they encourage others to do it. Hence @mattbrowne‘s statement.

Islamist and Islam practitioner are not always the same thing.

BTW, the term Islamist is used commonly in Europe and the ME to help people distinguish the difference. Our president for some reason refuses to use the word, and thus contributes to the confusion.

Mmmkay. What is the religion of non-Islamist Muslims?

@glacial dang it! Just when I thought I was getting things figured out!

@glacial

Islam- a religion with lots of followers who don’t do or say much that represents danger to you and me.

Islamism-Political Islam ideology that attempts to direct all activities in Muslim society as a whole and demands that law must must confirm to Sharia and preaches, and uses violence as faith sanctioned and blessed means of doing it. It is legitimized by multiple passages in the Koran.

Some Muslims ignore these words, just like most Christians ignore Deuteronomy.
All Islamists are Muslim
Not all Muslims are Islamists.
But if they do not speak against Islamism, then we have no way of knowing. And since the threat of Islamism is a threat to most of our institutions not to mention our lives, we don’t have much choice than to assume they could be Islamists.
A person to read about in reference to Islamism is Sayid Qtub.

Any, I don’t want to get into it. I was just trying to clarify @mattbrowne before people got too deep in his shit. Next time I will let him speak for himself.

What does mmmkay mean?

Thank you @josie for the clarification.

Mmmmkay means you go “mmmm” (thinking) before you say “OK” but then you have to drop the O, so it comes out “mmmkay.” And what it means depends on the context. I took @glacial‘s ‘Mmmmkay’ to mean he was a little confused too, just like me.

It means, “I tentatively accept this response, but with reservations that I cannot fully articulate at this given time.” Or it can mean, “You are so full of shit.” Context is important.

I usually use it to mean it as the former, because the latter use is only barely more economical than the actual meaning.

I realize I shouldn’t be putting you on the spot for a clarification of what @mattbrowne said, but thanks for explaining what you meant. I find myself wondering how widely recognized or accepted this division is, and whether it is even meaningful when no one is even talking about reform for Islam yet. I think that without that reform, attacking “Islamists’” ideology will always be seen as simply an affront against Islam.

Me too. I had no idea, really.

Mmmkay.
Thanks.

…without that reform, attacking “Islamists’” ideology will always be seen as simply an affront against Islam.

Without the reform, who cares if it is an affront?
That is the whole point. Without the reform, you have no real choice but to assume the worst about all Muslims. So at that point, I say defend liberal institutions, secular government, and Western lives and don’t worry about affront.

I’m done with this.

@josie “you have no real choice but to assume the worst about all Muslims”

This is essentially where we disagree.

@glacial
Hope you’re right. If you’re wrong, good night.

@josie a studied, thoughtful and realistic response. Thank you.

@josie Thank you for some great answers. I appreciate your insight into this. And I agree with you when you ask, “Without the reform, who cares if it is an affront?” If that’s the way the game has to be played, the rest of us outnumber them about 6 to 1, and in nukes, by about 10,000 to 1. I hate to put it in such stark terms, but when a certain subset of a population is intent on destroying everyone who refuses to become part of their cockamamie belief system, it’s well to point out to them what sort of fight they are picking.

Interestingly enough, I live in the heart of the Muslim world.

The matter at hand isn’t religion, it’s politics.

Islamism is an instrument that had been used by leaders to rally the masses behind their cause. As the Christian faith has been in the past as well.

Unlike Chriat, Mohammed (pbuh), in his time, was a worldly leader. A leader that actually was relatively liberal from the view od those days.

What we perceive as rules opressing women were introduced to protect the from a reality in this times which was much harsher. I often ask my Muslim friends here if they think about what Mohammed has done in his days, whether Mohammed would be proud of the way his home turned out to be 1434 years later. All of them when thinking about what they know about Mohammed had to confess that he most likely wouldn’t be.

Many of the rules we get presented as sharia actually have no funding in Qu’ran but stem from tribal societies and politics.

Like the bible was in the past, the Qu’ran is read by people in the language it was written: Arabic. Most of the people willing to kill themselves for the cause cannot read that. They can recite, but not read the Qu’ran. This makes them vulnerable for any and a manipulation. More so since Mohammed was a far more complicated character than Jesus was. With him being a worldly leader in his time that had been in wars you can take his public image in far more aggressive interpretations.

The thing I want to say is that an analysis that starts with what is written in Qu’ran will not explain what is happening right now. It’s politics combined with socio-economics.

Actually we might want to put some efforts into trying to understand the Muslim faith and actively communicate the peace aspects it carries.

Focussing on us versus them just adds more fuel to what may end up to become a global firestorm if we’re not careful.

as an example: the Quran says that adultery for married people will be punished twice as hefty as for unmarried people. This is a clear example of Qu’ran contradicting the view that adultery should be punished by death.

Hope this makes sense.

And please don’t be too gullible either. There are many Muslim leaders actively fighting the militant interpretations. As there are also many governments doing the same. Don’t forget that the number one group of victims of Muslim violence is made up by other Muslims.

As I’m sure you all understand: our media find a Muslim burning the American flag and shouting anti western venom in English a lot more interesting than an old man with a beard talking peace in Arabic, while wearing a dress.

Sorry for my late replies. I’ve been quite busy the last two days.

@josie‘s interpretation of my previous post is correct. I will reply individually, but let me make some more general statements first:

I’m a liberal. I support religious freedom, which includes the right not to believe. I appreciate diversity. I think it’s great that humanity features so many different cultures and religions. One essential condition, though, is mutual respect.

Liberals are not surprised when liberals criticize the Christian right. They think it’s a good idea. And it is. No doubt about it, in my opinion.

But a lot of liberals are surprised when liberals criticize certain movements within the global Muslim community, except when it’s about militant Islamism / terrorism. @Dutchess_III post, asking for clarification, was exactly about that.

Non-militant Islamists are not violent themselves, but they support the idea of violence as a part of the holy Islamic law. Non-militant Islamists are an integral part of the indoctrination machinery. Non-militant Islamists see themselves as the true defenders of Islam. Many are active trying to turn normal mainstream Muslims into non-militant Islamists.

Many mainstream Muslims are also part of the problem, because they fail to recognize the need for reform. Muslims who support leaders like Irshad Manji are a minority. Many of her supporters fear that they are bringing shame to their families. Irshad Manji is an openly lesbian Muslim. This alone is a problem for many mainstream Muslims. They say: She’s a lesbian, so she can’t be our teacher.

When liberals like myself criticize mainstream Muslims and non-militant Islams, we often become targets of of other liberals who are outraged by our criticism. Here on Fluther I have received PMs and was called a bigot and intellectual dwarf. It almost made be leave Fluther for good. I took a break and then a good Jelly friend convinced me to come back.

I won’t repress my viewpoints. Non-militant Islamism is a dangerous totalitarian political ideology disguised as a religion. Non-militant Islamism doesn’t respect Western culture at all. Non-militant Islamists despise our way of life. They don’t believe in universal human rights. They see democracy as a temporary evil on the road to power. They believe in Islamic supremacy.

@glacial – You asked: What is a Muslim who does not already adhere to Islam? Can there be such a person?

Islam is what Muslims make of it. Christianity is what Christians make of it. And it mainly depends on two things.

A) Today’s interpretation of the original texts
B) Today’s interpretation of what religious authorities have said after the original texts were finalized

For Islam, the relevant texts are the Quran (Koran) and the Sunnah (what Muhammad is believed to have said and done). Sayings attributed to Muhammad are also called Hadiths. They have been classified into very reliable, reliable, questionable and non-authentic. A lot of the violence and the discrimination against Muslim women and non-Muslims is actually in the Sunnah, not the Quran. For example that women are deficient in religion and deficient in intelligence. The Hadith of Sahih Al-Bukhari is seen as a reliable source.

One could argue that text is text and it is all clear, but this is an illusion. There’s almost always more than one interpretation. Let’s take an example:

Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).

What does it mean today? Here are some options.

1) It is okay to kill non-Muslims today, especially when they insult or attack Islam
2) It was okay in general when Muhammad lived in times of war, but it is no longer okay today
3) It was okay when Muhammad lived, but only when the disbelievers attacked first (Muhammad was actually a victim of religious intolerance shown by the polytheists in Mecca).

When we look at factor B it gets even more complicated. Which religious authorities of the past are relevant today? Who was right and who was wrong?

So when a Muslim today adheres to Islam, what kind of Islam are we talking about?

@bkcunningham – Pick and choose the parts of the Bible/Quran that suits them?

It’s not about picking and choosing or ignoring and not ignoring. It’s about interpretation. Nothing should be ignored. It’s about interpretation of the entire holy texts. The Hebrews as depicted in the Old Testament had a violent history, but they evolved. The evil passages of Deuteronomy was never turned into Jewish law. Today’s common interpretation of these parts of Deuteronomy is a historic description, not a list of commands to be followed today.

@ETpro – Yes, I meant that in Germany it is a crime to form groups that want to abolish democracy and our constitution, which gives us a legal basis to persecute non-militant Islamists.

Again, as mentioned above, it’s not about disregarding very large portions of holy texts. It’s about interpretation.

@josie – You wrote that without the reform of Islam, we have no real choice but to assume the worst about all Muslims. I wouldn’t put it that way. I would say that without the reform of Islam, mainstream Muslims will adhere to 7th-century Islam and destroy the Muslims’ capacity for growth. They also remain vulnerable to supporting the ideas of political Islam. As mentioned in the other thread, reform according to Irshad Manji is also important because

– in mainstream Islam peace has to replace conformity as priority number one
– the Muslim world needs education, not indoctrination
– only free societies allow for the reinvention of the self and the evolution of faiths
– we need pluralism of nonviolent ideas everywhere
– introspection is necessary when things go wrong
– most mainstream Muslims don’t dare to differ with their theocrats
– peace-loving mainstream Muslims have to snap out of denial and find the courage to speak out
– peace-loving mainstream Muslims must demand a sharia-free and fatwa-free world
– most mainstream Muslims were more offended by the Danish cartoons than by the riots and killings that occurred afterwards, and this should be seen as a scandal
– the perceived consistency of holy texts is an illusion
– there is no such thing as perfect scripture
– the stubborn streak of anti-Semitism in Islam is a fact that has to be acknowledged
– the Quran needs an interpretation that works in the 21st century
– men don’t have a monopoly of interpreting the Quran
– the Quran has three times as many verses urging Muslims to think than verses promoting blind worship
– tribal customs should not be confused with faith
– Islam has not conquered Arab culture, Arab culture has conquered Islam
– cultures are man-made and there is nothing sacred about culture; only good cultural practices should survive

@whitenoise – Thanks for sharing insights. Yes, it’s about politics. It’s about an ideology that contradicts our political system. Mohammad was a product of his time. He was a social reformer. But when he died, the world continued to evolve. Mohammad didn’t want female newborns to be killed. Otherwise he let men be in charge. If Muslims stick to 7th-century views they ignore all the progress afterwards. There are Salafists (a special movement among the non-militant Islamists) who refuse tooth brushs, because Muhammad chewed on wood.

Some of the rules we get presented as sharia have no funding in Qu’ran, but in the Sunnah. This should be mentioned. There are Islamic schools of thought such as the Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi’i, Zahiri, Imami Shi’ite, Ahl al-Hadith, Jariri and Kharijite. They all require that Muslim apostates be killed.

Very few Muslims openly challenge these schools, which are essentially the opposite of religious freedom. They don’t give Muslims the right to become Christians or atheists.

All of you might find this story interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313270/Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Boston-bombers-rants-mosque-non-Muslim-holidays-non-believer-MLK-Jr.html

“Tamerlan Tsarnaev lashed out at religious leaders at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center on two occasions. The first outburst came last November when preachers told mosque congregants that it was appropriate for Muslims to celebrate U.S. holidays such as the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving, causing Tamerlan to stand up and argue. The second was this past January. The mosque said that Tamerlan, who was not a member but visited for Friday evening services often, lashed out at a preacher for lecturing on Martin Luther King Jr’s accomplishments. Tamerlan screamed at the preacher and called him a ‘hypocrite’ and a ‘non-believer’ who was ‘contaminating people’s minds.’”

@mattbrowne

Good stuff. Thanks

I am doing a bit of reading on the faith but there is a few things that I find a bit unsettling. It’s appears to be a very intolerant faith.

@mattbrowne When preaching tolerance and understanding is “contaminating people’s minds” and blowing children’s legs off is an act of faith, I want no part of that faith.

@antimatter All Abrahamic religions are unsettling in their instructions to the faithful. It’s just that most Jews and Christians have quit believing the parts of their foundational religious texts that exhort them to extremes of sectarian violence, whereas more and more of Islam seems to be sliding in the other direction, back toward the 11th century mindset.

@ETpro – Traditional dogmatic Islam isn’t preaching tolerance and understanding. Intolerance is part of the set of dogmas (dhimmitude, death for apostates etc). Many modern Muslims no longer consider this intolerant part as dogma to be applied today. They stick to the tolerant core, also known as the early Meccan suras. As you wrote, they want no part of the traditional dogmatic faith. A reformed Islam is necessary to officially negate or “outlaw” the old intolerant faith.

@mattbrowne It would seem that few leaders among the moderate school are willing to call out the intolerant though, because doing so can substantially shorten one’s life. I don’t know what it will take to get that to change.

@ETpro – Yes, that’s a sad fact. What will it take to get that to change? Some of these few leaders fearing for their lives say: reformed Islam must become mainstream. Christian churches needed centuries. Perhaps Islam can do it in a few decades. Internet usage will speed it up. I’m very encouraged by what is happening in Turkey right now: secular Muslims taking to the streets trying to put a stop to Erdogan’s reislamization of Kemal Attatürk’s Turkey.

@mattbrowne If more leaders would speak out forcefully as this brave Imam is doing, things might change for the better. Let’s hope change can come through dialog and reason rather than violence. We can certainly add our olnline voices to those of the secular Turks protesting Erdogan’s efforts to drag Turkey back to the Dark Ages.

Assalamualaikum (peace be on u).

Yes. A definite yes. Islam is a religion of peace. In fact Islam is derived from the arabic word ‘salaam’ which means peace.
As far as I am concerned and as far as what is in the Quran I can say that Islam is a religion of peace. My request to all my non-Muslim brothers and sisters is that if you want to follow a religion then follow it by its scriptures and not by its followers.

Don’t judge Islam based on the what media says (because media is in war with Islam and it will do anything to malign Islam), read the Quran yourself to know more about it.

CNN,FOX,etc will show you videos that shows a Taliban guy (or whoever ) beats a girl or a woman just to show you what is the status of women in Islam. No one knows whether it is the truth or not whether its real or fake. But the same media will never show you videos like the one mentioned below.

Salaam.

From captive to convert

As far as terrorism is concerned please go through these links mentioned below :

America and Petro-Dollar and

Is TERRORISM a monopoly of Islam

Peace.

@syed_shaji I am aware of the meaning of salaam and the derivation of the word, Islam. But I am also aware that what someone chooses to call an authoritarian movement and what it actually does are often vastly different. North Korea is arguably the most oppressive, authoritarian regime on Earth today, and perhaps in all of Earth’s history. And yet it calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It is as far from being democratic, a republic, or a state concerned with the well-being of its people (unless you happen to be one of the people that are its “living Gods” named Kim).

We know that Muslims riot in the streets and kill people because a cartoon was published. We know they throw battery acid in little girl’s faces. We know the Taliban shot Malala in the head simply for going to school, and boasted about it. Blame it on oil if you want, but your
mendacity screams so loudly through your defense of the Taliban I can’t hear anything else you say.

I’m sorry, I have to agree with @ETpro on this one. The media doesn’t make up atrocities committed in the name of Islam (particularly the Taliban, known for their extremist ways). These things do happen. Now, that does not give us the right to say “all Muslims are like this” or “this is all Islam’s fault”, but these things do occur and to pretend as if they are just a figment of the media and that Islam plays no role in these atrocities is absurd.

Assalmualaikum.

Brothers @DominicX @ETpro agree with you on some parts but couldn’t agree with you on other parts. Why so? Here’s what I think.

At first we thought that Oklahoma bomb blast was a middle east conspiracy (that was what the media said) , but later we found out that the bomber was from the US military.

Similar case with the 9/11 attack. Media was quick to say that it was done by Islamic Radicals (I don’t know whether these guys even exist or not). And most of us know that it was inside job funded by Zionists. Just to get and excuse for the Bush administration to attack the middle east countries most probably for oil. And in the process they have killed many people including Children,Women and Old ones. Nearly half a million in Iraq and many more in other middle east, these attacks are going on even now through drone strikes in the name of suspected terrorists. Who is to blame for that. We can’t just ignore these facts too.
Now some percent of the media might not be involved into it.

Now having said that I can’t deny the fact that there are some among the Muslims
who would kill unjustly. But Quran condemns it. For instance in Syria and Iraq etc. But Islam completely condemns it. Similarly there are many other religious terrorist organizations in many parts of the world, but I cannot brush their religions to not peaceful religions.
Brothers go to a mosque near you (Just for fun) and meet Muslims in there and you would find them more of Hospitable and not terrorists. :)

It is mentioned in the Quran (5:32) :

“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.”

There are many such verses in the Quran that condemn unjust killing.

I don’t know whether you have watched the last video that I presented in my previous answer.
I recommend you to watch it to know about what are the Islamic views on Terrorism.
Terrorism in Islam

Salaam (Peace) Brothers.

With such conspiracy theories, there is no discussing anything. I don’t care to argue with someone who denies evidence and favors unfounded beliefs because they support his faith-based preconceptions.

Assalamualaikum.

Let’s agree to disagree brother.

Peace.

@syed_shaji Agreed. And may peace be with you as well.

People do all sorts of stuff ,, whether they are Muslims , Christians , Jews, etc…. but it is a matter of reviewing the original guidelines and values for a certain religion rather than judging a religion based on what a number of its followers does or doesn’t do.

Unfortunately more and more often, Islam has been associated with terrorism and violence due to the actions of a few extreme individuals who’ve taken it upon themselves to do the most heinous crimes in the name of Islam.

To understand Islam’s stance on terrorism, one must refer to its original sources, the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,which are explicit in their prohibition of any form of injustice including that of wanton violence which seeks to instill fear, injury or death to civilians.

The Quran turns our attention to the high value of human life, whether it is Muslim or Non-Muslim and makes it absolutely forbidden to take an innocent life unjustly. The gravity of such a crime is equated, in the Quran, with the killing of all humanity.

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” ( 5:32 )

Not only is human life sacred in Islam but the property, wealth, family and dignity of all individuals in society are to be respected and protected. Those who transgress these rights and sow fasad (corruption) as the Quran describes it, incur the wrath of Allah.

”…and seek not corruption in the earth; lo! Allah loveth not corrupters ” (28:77)

Likewise in another verse

“The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous” (42:42)

Islam goes further than just prohibiting oppression and safeguarding rights, it commands its faithful to deal kindly and compassionately to all those who seek to live in peace and harmony

“Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loves those who are just” (60:8)

In times of war and conflict, where enmity can obstruct an individual’s judgement to act morally, Islam commands that justice be upheld even towards one’s enemies.

“O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do” (5:8)

Centuries before the Geneva Convention was drawn up, Muslims were bound by a code of conduct which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, set. He forbade the killing of women, children and elderly in war. In an authentic narration the Prophet (pbuh) warned that he who kills anyone who has a covenant of peace with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Paradise. In fact, he taught that justice is not only to humans but must be shown to animals and all living things. In a narration the Prophet (pbuh) informed us about how a lady was sent to hell because of a cat she had locked up until it starved and died. If such is the sanctity which Islam places on the soul of an animal, how much more grave is the killing of hundreds of innocent humans?!

Abu Bakr the first Calipha of the Muslims reflected these prophetic teachings when he advised his general Yazid, who was confronting Roman armies,

“I advise you ten things, Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”

The message of the Quran is clear as we have seen, that the sanctity of any human life is to be respected and any violation in that regard is paramount to the worst crime. Mercy is at the heart of the Islamic call, “We sent thee (O Muhammad) not save as a mercy for the peoples” (21:107); a totally different message to what the terrorists are sadly imparting to humanity.

At the time the Quran was revealed (7th century A.D.), there was no United Nations or Amnesty International to keep the peace or expose injustice. Inter-tribal violence and vengeance was commonplace. As a matter of survival, one must have been willing to defend against aggression from all sides. Nevertheless, the Quran repeatedly urges forgiveness and restraint, and warns believers not to “transgress” or become “oppressors.” Some examples:

If anyone slays a person
– unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land -
it would be as if he slew all people.
And if anyone saves a life,
it would be as if he saved the life of all people.
Quran 5:32

Invite all to the way of your Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching.
And argue with them
in ways that are best and most gracious…
And if you punish,
let your punishment be proportional
to the wrong that has been done to you.
But if you show patience, that is indeed the best course.
Be patient, for your patience is from God.
And do not grieve over them,
or distress yourself because of their plots.
For God is with those who restrain themselves,
and those who do good.
Quran 16:125–128

Oh you who believe!
Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God,
even against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin,
and whether it be against rich or poor,
for God can best protect both.
Follow not the cravings of your hearts, lest you swerve,
and if you distort justice or decline to do justice,
verily God is well acquainted with all that you do.
Quran 4:135

The recompense for an injury
is an injury equal thereto (in degree),
but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation,
his reward is due from God,
for God loves not those who do wrong.
But indeed, if any do help and defend themselves
after a wrong done to them,
against such there is no cause of blame.
The blame is only against those who oppress men
with wrongdoing and insolently transgress
beyond bounds through the land,
defying right and justice.
For such there will be a penalty grievous (in the Hereafter).
But indeed, if any show patience and forgive,
that would truly be an affair of great resolution.
Quran 42:40–43

Goodness and evil are not equal.
Repel evil with what is better.
Then that person with whom there was hatred,
may become your intimate friend!
And no one will be granted such goodness
except those who exercise patience and self-restraint,
none but people of the greatest good fortune.
Quran 41:34–35

I think it’s safe to say that what ever faith we wish to practice and what ever book we wish to read there will always be that question regarding who is right or who wrong. I personally don’t like religion, if you can believe in God, Allah, Buddha, or all the Hindu Gods than you can just as well believe in little green men and in rainbows and unicorns. It’s fair enough to say that your Koran, The Holy Bible and all the other books state that their religions should be religions of peace, but that’s only a guideline how to practice that faith. It’s the people who read those books who does the killing, it’s them who judge people like us who does not embrace their belief systems. Because they deny it that in some ways they want to enforce their believe systems upon guys like me and when they don’t find a way to enforce it upon you then they treat you as if you are a piece crap. It seems to me in the case of the Islam followers they simply blow you up if you don’t agree with their view points. Christians are even worse they will not kill or blow you up, what they will do is to destroy your life at work and your friends. And they love to persecute and judge. I will stick to my guns that the Islamic faith’s followers are not practicing what they read because if they were a religion of peace whey is there all those radical militant groups?