Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

[The_Prince]

Salam all! here is a debate i had 3 weeks ago in California concerning the above topic:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aDebQrT6CXI - Part 1

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o5U1PqakmbE - Part 2

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4z82lZF5pVQ - Part 3

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2RRH_VKKsRk - Part 4

[suffiyan007]

is islam the religion of peace?...wallah, if we are in same religion dont u feel peace in the straight path of way to worship Allah...why lotsa doubt in islam? Ihdinasiratal mustaqim...!
islam is the religion oF peace and complete Deen!

[aadil77]

30 mins each!:eek:

but good work bro :thumbs_up

[suffiyan007]

30 mins each!:eek:

but good work bro :thumbs_up

u r address to me or to the prince?:confused:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Amadeus85]

Is islam a religion of peace? I have to say honestly that I dont know. As muslims say, Islam is mix of religion, law, political system and civilization. In the history, until Islam had enough military power it spread with the muslim armies by conquest. Middle East, Maghreb, Indian Peninsula, Balkans, Minor Asia, Persia, Egypt. The exception is of course Indonesia and Malaysia and other south eastern territories with muslim population(like Thailand, Philipinnes and Cambodia).
Since there is no separation between religion and a state in Islam, I must believe that every of that conquest had religious background.
But on the other hand the conquered people mostly werent forced to convert to muslims' faith. It was their decision, backed by various reasons.
Thats why i think that the truth lays somehwere between.

[Keltoi]

Well, there must be a separation between the religion in its purest form and the imperfect practice of human beings. That goes for Islam and Christianity.

[Sami234]

Keltoi : that's true.

Aaron 85 : Personally, as a muslim, I don't really see Islam as a religion of peace. It's not a tedybear religion. But it's not a religion aiming to convert people by sword, telling them "convert or die". But history recording cases when some Muslims kings forced people to convert, although it was exceptions.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Islam allows expansion into other territories if those territories do not allow Islam to be conveyed there. If those people allow Islam to be heard, without torturing those who are Muslims for their faith - then that government doesn't need to be fought. The examples of Malaysia, Indonesia etc. are good examples when fighting never really took place, and the Muslims were allowed to practise their faith there freely.

The US and EU does the same where it allows people the freedom to believe what they want to, so long as they accept the authority of the leaders.

[S1aveofA11ah]

Keltoi : that's true.

Aaron 85 : Personally, as a muslim, I don't really see Islam as a religion of peace. It's not a tedybear religion. But it's not a religion aiming to convert people by sword, telling them "convert or die". But history recording cases when some Muslims kings forced people to convert, although it was exceptions.

I don't know why you see peace as something negative by you saying "It's not a teadybear religion". I don't know any other Muslim ever to have uttered such a statement.

Islam means submitting to the will of Allah which if a person does he/she will natrually obtain inner/outer peace. They will lead happy and meaningful lives which gives people peace. Look at the troubled world we live in today - it needs PEACE.

[rami0323]

Salam alikom
I've just become Muslim and i think - no! , i know Islam is the best way for me! I finally found the truth. And of course - Islam is a religion of peace!

[Argamemnon]

I don't believe it's right to conquer non-Muslim countries in order to spread Islam. I think it's against Islam. We are only allowed to wage war when we are attacked by disbelievers and driven out of our homes. Also when Muslims are oppressed in non-Muslim countries we are allowed to help our Muslim brothers in that country.

[Sami234]

As salamou 'aleykom

Well, I am just saying that Jihad Al-Talab exist, and there is an ijmaa' from the scholars. But I don't know the detail. So I said "teddybear religion" because lot's of people try to say that Jihad is only about defending, which is false.

[Fishman]

:sl:
Fishman's generally non-biased, generally accurate piece of Hackery:

The Caliphates and the other Muslim powers (Mughals, Ottomans, Persians etc.) were spread by the sword, quite obviously. But so were all the other Empires in history. The Persian and Roman Empires had been expanding violently for centuries and the Western European countries were the descendants of the Germanic tribes that had crushed Rome in the fifth century.

Islam as a religion was not really spread by the sword except in parts of India and the Balkans. The Ummayads actually made mass conversions forbidden because they didn't want the privilaged status of the Arabs to be undermined. In most of the Caliphate, Islam stayed a minority religion until sometime during the Abassid rule.

Like Christianity, Islam also spread beyond the bounds of Islamic states. this mainly happened in tribal, 'unclivilised' areas, another similarity to Christianity. These areas were sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. Central Asian Islam is quite unusual as the regions it was present in were conquered by shamanist Mongols, who later converted to Islam and helped it spread further.

With the exception of Southeast Asia, however, the interaction between Islamic states and these areas was certainly not peaceful, as they were frequently being raided for slaves. Slave traders who entered these areas tended to bring Islam with them and spread it there. This somewhat resembles Christianity's spread in Latin America and west Africa, but it is a bit shakey.

Islam also spread in the west indies and south America before the modern era. This was because many African slaves taken by Europeans were Muslim, and some retained their religion after being enslaved. There is not really any equivalent of this in Islamic history.

Pre-modern Christian countries have rarely conquered non-Christian areas with strong organised religions. The few examples are the Reconquista in Spain, the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs and Incas, the Russian conquest of Siberia and the Crusades. In the first three examples, non-Christian religions were crushed almost immediately. In the Crusades, Muslim populations did remain, but Christians were still a very large minority in the region anyway.
In the Russian conquest of Siberia (specifically western Siberia) the government tried to Christianise the native population, which was to some extent successful. However, some regions remain Muslim today.
This shows that Christian countries were a bit more prone to forceful religious conversion than Islamic ones. However, all of the major forced conversions were commited by the Spanish, so maybe this shows more about Spain than Christianity in general.

[Thinker]

:salamext:
Islam allows expansion into other territories if those territories do not allow Islam to be conveyed there.

If it's OK for Islam to expand into 'other territories' if those territories do not allow Islam to be conveyed there, is it OK for other religions to expand into 'other territories' if those territories do not allow 'other' religions to be conveyed there or is it one rule for one and another rule for the other?

Does my question (and the expected answer) lend itself to answering the original question?

[جوري]

It is usually best when speaking of 'expansion' by whatever means to draw from some realistic possibilities not conjectural ones...

you should replace 'Islam' with say the 'the empire where the sun never sets' and see what conclusions you come up with.. although in my own mind, there can be no comparison to what Islam brought the world over say, British colonialism!

peace

[Thinker]

It is usually best when speaking of 'expansion' by whatever means to draw from some realistic possibilities not conjectural ones...

you should replace 'Islam' with say the 'the empire where the sun never sets' and see what conclusions you come up with.. although in my own mind, there can be no comparison to what Islam brought the world over say, British colonialism!

peace

Hi,

Skye – not sure where the British Empire comes into this?

What I was trying to get to was the original question posed by this thread and the post above that says ‘Islam allows expansion into other territories if those territories do not allow Islam to be conveyed there’ which implies the use of force. As nobody has denied that post I presume the quote was from an accepted hadith; I can’t find it, does it allow expansion through force?

And following that, if Islam demands the freedom to spread the word into ‘other territories’ does it also offer the same freedom to other religions to peacefully ‘convey’ their message in Muslim territories? Again, we have seen instances of Christians being stopped from preaching Christianity to Muslims but I don’t know if that is because Islam forbids it?

I suggest that the answer to these question might have an influence on the answer to the original question.

[- Qatada -]

If it's OK for Islam to expand into 'other territories' if those territories do not allow Islam to be conveyed there, is it OK for other religions to expand into 'other territories' if those territories do not allow 'other' religions to be conveyed there or is it one rule for one and another rule for the other?

Does my question (and the expected answer) lend itself to answering the original question?

I don't need to say whether its allowed for other religions or not, simply because they have their own rules for what they do. Since Islam is the truth - the Muslims will convey it to the rest of mankind, while believing it is the truth. Other religions will use their own religions to justify what they do. To answer your question more specifically - since Muslims believe they are upon the truth [with an authentic basis] they will believe it is superior to falsehood, and therefore make that the dominant source of law (with the addition of freedom of religion for the non muslims - which is also based on Islamic principles.)

As is well known, the US is doing similar right now in the world, they believe they are upon the truth - so they feel that the rest of the world should accept their 'form of truth' [of 'democracy'] at a state level over other forms of rule.


The only difference is that Islam brought a great deal of benefit to the masses as can be seen in Islamic history, compared to the colonialists who actually brought more corruption in the lands they conquered than benefit as is well known. Besides, in the majority of the cases of Islamic [Futuh] openings (not conquests), the masses were happy with the justice and goodness brought forth them. Islam is what actually caused Europe to experience the Rennaissance (due to advances in Muslim Spain and Muslim Ottoman Turkey.) What the colonialists did instead was to split up great nations into further subdivisions so people fought each other, whereas Islam brought unity for mankind at a great coexisting level.




Peace.

[fouzie]

Yes, Islam is a religion of peace. I really found my heart at peace with Islam.

__________________
Khalid Yasin - What Is True Success In Life
From The Root To The Fruit By Khalid Yasin

[MSalman]

If it's OK for Islam to expand into 'other territories' if those territories do not allow Islam

Thinker, brother Qatada's response need to be understood within the context. Let me break it down for you, just in case if you don't know:

1 - Offensive and defensive jihad exist against the enemies (disbelievers, oppressors, those who spread fitnah etc)
2 - We're obliged to spread the message of Islaam till it overtakes all other religions. In this process, the nations will be divided into three groups: 1) the enemies 2) the allies 3) the nations under protection of Islamic state. Therefore, the offensive and defensive physical jihad is obliged against the enemies. As far as I know, this is the whole context of 'fight them until the religion of all is Islaam'. This has been understood from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah of Allah's Rasoul (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam - peace and blessings be upon him)

I hope this helps

Wallahu A'lam (and Allah knows best)

[Thinker]

Thinker, brother Qatada's response need to be understood within the context. Let me break it down for you, just in case if you don't know:

1 - Offensive and defensive jihad exist against the enemies (disbelievers, oppressors, those who spread fitnah etc)
2 - We're obliged to spread the message of Islaam till it overtakes all other religions. In this process, the nations will be divided into three groups: 1) the enemies 2) the allies 3) the nations under protection of Islamic state. Therefore, the offensive and defensive physical jihad is obliged against the enemies. As far as I know, this is the whole context of 'fight them until the religion of all is Islaam'. This has been understood from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah of Allah's Rasoul (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam - peace and blessings be upon him)

I hope this helps

Wallahu A'lam (and Allah knows best)

Thank you for a clear and unambiguous explanation.

You say - 'fight them until the religion of all is Islaam' which I presume you're quoting from the Qur'an or hadith - doesn't sound very 'peaceful?'

[Argamemnon]

As far as I know, this is the whole context of 'fight them until the religion of all is Islaam'.

I disagree and so do many scholars. I will have to find what it actually means though, since I have forgotten it. I don't want to give false information, but I know what you said is wrong.

[MSalman]

You say - 'fight them until the religion of all is Islaam' which I presume you're quoting from the Qur'an or hadith - doesn't sound very 'peaceful?'

yes, i rephrased an ayah of the Qur'aan. The argument of 'peaceful' can be subjective sometime, even if it is an objective as I mentioned earlier the whole concept of physical jihad or this ayah must be understood within the context. We follow the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam); he called people to Islaam and later on sent letters and his companions to different nations to spread the message. As a result, some tribes became his allies, others came under his protection and others became enemies. So, they fought the enemies: took initative or defended themselves. and as you know number of things can happen as a result of war: peace treaty, give the nation to enemy etc. However, it doesn't mean force people to accept Islaam or randomly kill them. Refer to the following links and i'm sure they would help:
The wisdom behind jihad
Ruling on jihad and kinds of jihad
Ruling on physical jihad

Don't forget that we're here to please Allah Ta'ala not people. So, it doesn't matter to us what you think about the Sharee'ah rulings: like it or not. If you like it that's good for you and if you don't then too bad for you.

and certainly Allah knows best

I disagree and so do many scholars. I will have to find what it actually means though, since I have forgotten it. I don't want to give false information, but I know what you said is wrong.

As-Salamu 'Alaykum brother
no problem brother, let's hear what the classical scholars have said regarding these kinds of ayaat. My understanding can certainly be incorrect but please don't quote me contemporary comparative religion scholars. Jazak Allah khair!

[Amadeus85]

I see it that way that muslims believe that european colonialism was always bad and muslim colonialism was always good, :).

[- Qatada -]

Thinker, since Islam brought more good to them civilizations than bad [for the masses] - then that's something praiseworthy. If you disagree with this, then ask yourself whether you support injustice or not. If you believe that human rights matter (which Islam upholds and actually introduced with firm foundations) - then you agree that it was worthy of Islam removing them civilizations oppressive rulers. Even if you don't agree with Islamic rule, in the majority of cases - the people were pleased with Muslims as their rulers compared to their previous rulers (i.e. due to lower tax rates, more freedom in religion and equal rights in court etc), and the colonialist regimes (which were only intended for the benefits of the colonialists themselves put down the people they ruled over [due to them being 'inferior races' (based on the 'survival of the fittest' theory), whereas Islam brought benefit for the people i.e. the great Caliphs Umar ibn Al Khattaab, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz who lived in mud houses while ruling 1/3 of the earth with justice. etc.)



Peace.

[Thinker]

Thinker, since Islam brought more good to them civilizations than bad [for the masses] - then that's something praiseworthy. If you disagree with this,
Peace.

I am not disagreeing with anything I was just trying to progress the question.

As usual in these discussions some side issues develop.

First there is the concept of ‘fairness’ and I would suggest that God must be fair (just as opposed to unjust) and it would seem only fair that if God demands that it be allowed to preach Islam to followers of other religions it should allow equal freedom to other religions. If God doesn’t allow this he is being unfair and unjust and that contradicts the definition of God.

Second there is the suggestion that you must ‘follow the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad’ and he decreed, 'fight them until the religion of all is Islaam.' That raises are persistent problem with the sunnah, that being that when Muhammad wrote that he was living at a time when war with other tribes was the norm. In this context it raises a specific problem in that when Muhammad spoke of the necessity to spread the religion of Islam there was only one version of Islam, that is not the case today.

[MSalman]

First there is the concept of ‘fairness’ and I would suggest that God must be fair (just as opposed to unjust) and it would seem only fair that if God demands that it be allowed to preach Islam to followers of other religions it should allow equal freedom to other religions. If God doesn’t allow this he is being unfair and unjust and that contradicts the definition of God.

your poor understanding is hunting you. How does it make God unfair and unjust if He's obligating people to spread His religion? How would preaching other religions do any good to people when it would lead them to their doom? It's funny that one side you people say 'why didn't God make people follow only one religion' and other side you say 'God is being unfair by not allowing people to preach other religions'. You see, you people are just contradicting yourselves and running around in the circles.

Second there is the suggestion that you must ‘follow the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad’ and he decreed, 'fight them until the religion of all is Islaam.' That raises are persistent problem with the sunnah, that being that when Muhammad wrote that he was living at a time when war with other tribes was the norm. In this context it raises a specific problem in that when Muhammad spoke of the necessity to spread the religion of Islam there was only one version of Islam, that is not the case today.

thank your for taking my statements out of context; go back and read again what I said. I said when we'll preach Islaam in a way that Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) did, it is bound to happen that people will become our enemies, like it has happened in the past; thus, we'll fight them till: they become Muslims, give up, sign peace treaty, come under the proctecion of an Islaamic state. War is a norm and it happens in every era and will continue to do so due to the shortcomings of human beings. The true teachings of Islaam are still intact and preserved. Majority of the Muslims are following those teachings even thought it may not seem.