The recently held Congressional hearing about Muslims in America returns us to the question of whether "Islam is peace," as President George W. Bush put it on September 17, 2001, or a religion that promotes hate and violence, as its critics allege. Both are wrong. Islam -- like all other religions -- can be read both ways.
Muslims seeking to justify the use of force quote verses in the Quran such as, "Slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them"' (9:5). And they can cite the Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, stating, "I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah" (Muslim 1.9.30). At the same time, the champions of peace can quote the Quran itself, which states, "There is no compulsion in matter of faith" (2:256) and "No human can force a change of heart over which God alone has control" (10:99-100).
For some, jihad is interpreted as a "holy war" to subdue the non-believers; for others -- a spiritual struggle for moral self-improvement.
Most revealingly, similar texts, open to both kinds of readings, are found in other religions. On the one hand, Christians draw on passages from the New Testament, which portray Jesus as a wrathful conqueror striking down sinners with his sword and ruling with an iron rod (Revelation 19:15); while on the other, they can quote Matthew to "Turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-39) and "Put your sword back in its place" (Matthew 26:52).
Jews can read the Old Testament as condoning violence. For instance, "As for the towns of these people that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You must annihilate them," (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). And even revenge, as in "An eye for an eye." However, through the ages, rabbis have interpreted the same passage as referring merely to monetary compensation. And Jews have invoked pacifistic passages, such as "Nation shall not lift sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4; c.f. Micah 4:3)
I could go on and on. However, two observations seem incontestable. Those who seek to point to Islam as a religion that promotes violence should take note: It can be just as readily quoted to support nonviolence. And, in this way, it is not different from other major religions. It is up to the believers which interpretation they follow. However, condemning their faith as inherently violent cannot be justified.
Hence, to the extent that the Congressional hearings are focused on finding out which interpretation of Islam is gaining ground among our Muslim fellow citizens, it is a legitimate pursuit. So is to call on Muslim leaders and Mullahs who embrace the nonviolent version of Islam -- and to urge all religious mavens to follow the same course.
Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at The George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale 2007). For more discussion, visit http://icps.gwu.edu.
Peter Ochs, Ph.D.: Scripture, Science and Self in Islam
http://www.meforum.org/2105/judeo-christian-violence-vs-islamic-violence
Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. Yahweh clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God's will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e., the Halakha).
This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e., Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological, or, more specifically, doctrinal. Consider the following Koranic verses, better known as the "sword-verses":
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the pagans wherever you find them—take them [captive], besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (K 9:5).
The verse from the Quran refers to specific, historical situation -- namely, the "pagans" (polytheists) from Muhammad's original tribe in Mecca, who were seeking to exterminate him and his followers.
Do you have any references which show that this authorization to "slay the pagans" was indeed incorporated into Sharia law, permanently?
While I appreciate your earnestness in trying to understand Islam, it has to be understood that at least a certain form of Islam was used to destroy literally thousands of temples all over India.If in case you plan to visit India anytime in the future, I can show you the effect Islams friendliness displayed on pagan temples. Having said that, I wouldn't definitely blame contemporary Muslims for that.
===
Not that I noticed.
The arguments presented here are not particularly compelling, except for the uneducated, or those who are grasping at politically correct straws of cultural relativism.
1) Significant differences between prophets/role models, Biblical Jesus and Quranic Muhammed
2) Peace and tolerance is preached in Quran only when Muslims are numerically and politically weak; the goal remains to physically and politically dominate non-Muslims. Once power is gained, all the violent and intolerant Quranic suras occur.
3) Christianity endured, and adapted to, the Enlightment, the Reformation, and modern civil rights movement. Islam has yet to do this, and too many are too politically correct or too frightened to provide a catalyst (for example, this article)
===
Let's discuss the Islamic concept of "abrogation." All religions have ways to handle the contradictions found in their sacred texts. Christianity does so by acknowledging that the two Testaments are divinely inspired but written by the fallible hand of Man. Islam handles textual contradictions by a simple rule: whatever is written later supercedes what was written before. However, the Quran is not laid out in the order it was written, so "written later" doesn't mean farther into the book.
God does not abrogate any verse but substitutes something similar or better... 2:106
Before becoming an "overnight" sensation, Mohammed spent years in Mecca promoting his belief system without much luck. That's where he wrote the verses about "no compulsion in religion." He was not in a position to make harsh demands. Then he moved to Medina, where he proved much more successful, and where he wrote the "kill the infidels" verses. He then went on to conquer Mecca.
There is plenty of compulsion in religion under Islam, both in the book and on the ground.
To understand the Quraan, you need to understand the essence of what it is trying to say, not taking one verse in isolation rather understanding the context and the message. So trying to say ANY religion is ONLY peacefull or ONLY violent is again nonsense. There are times when the call for arms is a necessity and all other times peace is a necessity.
To understand the context:
- why did Muhammad pbuh leave Mecca? because if he stayed he and all his followers would have been killed.
- why did the call come for war? Because the Meccan intent was to completely wipe out the Muslims in Medina. Now if your very survival depends on fighting, would you not fight.
Try understanding the context...
===
Yes, that is something repeated often in Islam. It's obviously not true, though. The truth is that not submitting to Islam (either by conversion or dhimmitude) is itself considered such an affront that attacking those who don't submit is considered "defending the faith." Notice the many attacks around the world carried out in the name of Islam.
I know very well the Islam isn't ONLY violent, but it inspires violence in more people than other religions do. Concerned Muslims ought to work to change that instead of continuing to defend what has been debunked.
Heard any christians advocating the burning of witches and infidels at the stake recently? No, because that religion evolved and was forced to abandon its unfit elements. It's time for Islam to go through the same process.
Not that it would be OK attack Hindus or anyone else from a moral point of view but considering Judaism and Christianity reject Islam outright, it should be point to make about Islam's willing to live with member of other Abrahamic religions.
"Those who believe in the Quran, and those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians and the Sabians; any who believe in God and in the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
~Quran 5:69
Christians and Jews are known as People of the Book, in the Quran -- i.e. a "scriptured people". Later in Islamic history, this definition was expanded to include other scriptured peoples, included Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book
The only people not included among the People of the Book were the idolatrous polytheists in Arabia at the time Islam was formed, who were trying to exterminate Muhammad and his followers -- these polytheists were the "infidels" referenced in the Quran..
- I am an atheist I don't like religion. I guess I wont be going to your heaven then : )
Any organized religion cannot serve human liberation.
Modern man should not need monks for salvation but his own free thinking.
You can simply ignore the radical Christians, try that with the other radicals
===
I guess you don't know Muslims then.
I've found Muslims to be extremely low-key, especially when discussing religion.
Your experience has been otherwise, I take it?
We need to stop singling some groups out for discrimination while coddling others, which is precisely what we do in this country -- contrast these hearings with the way the Napolitano Report was quashed to see what I mean.
Why don't we treat all terrorist groups as threats equally and investigate them all, instead of picking and choosing which ones are scapegoated? Rhetorical question. I know the answer.