The Big Questions: Does Islam encourage violence?

[Uthman]

I thought I would post this debate that aired a few weeks ago on the BBC's The Big Questions with the question: Does Islam encourage violence?

I think the Muslim people on it did very well.

Media Tags are no longer supported

Media Tags are no longer supported

Media Tags are no longer supported

[Uthman]

Muezzin, our friend Douglas Murray is in it.

[GuestFellow]

Bah

Find it hilarious that they are asking questions whether Islam is violent or not. We should really be asking, ''are western countries violent and the ultimate tyrants?'' They created all the problems for themselves.

[zakirs]

I hate these kinda shows.. they don't give enough time to answer others... :|

[titus]

Islam encourages violence as much as Christianity or Judaism does.

By that I mean that any religion can be interpreted by one of its followers to mean anything they want. It simply depends on which portions of the text they want to emphasize and which parts they want to ignore.

[zakirs]

yes like misintrepreting any part and quoting out of context

[Argamemnon]

Islam encourages violence as much as Christianity or Judaism does.

By that I mean that any religion can be interpreted by one of its followers to mean anything they want. It simply depends on which portions of the text they want to emphasize and which parts they want to ignore.

I agree, bad people will always interpret things in a way that suits their psychotic minds.

[Uthman]

Here's a question that came into my mind when I watched it:

Are the extremists really people with purely political motives or are their actions genuinely based on their ignorant understanding of the texts?

[Amadeus85]

I would like to ask, even if (I am not able to answer, I know too less) islam encourage violence, so what?!
Must religion be peaceful to hold truth?
Wasn't judaism violent?
Wasn't catholicism violent?
If budhism is more peaceful, does it mean that it is more right and true?
Now we live in feminized, anti - heroic age, and especially in West people must bow before the Peace golden calf. The truth is that islam has different history than this promoted by the western liberal muslims would like to show. Same is with catholicism. Those religions were strong, vital and imperialistic in heroic age. Those were the times of brave knights and fearless muslim soldiers. But now, especially living in West we all must bow our heads before the Peaceful doctrine.

[titus]

So you would prefer glorifying the violence and destruction?

The times of the "brave knights" was a time of senseless killings, raping and pillaging. The time of "fearless Muslims soldiers" was a time of slavery and persecution.

his wasn't King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Nor was it 1001 Arabian Nights. These were not times to be proud of. They were times to be extremely glad you didn't live in.

[zakirs]

So you would prefer glorifying the violence and destruction?

The times of the "brave knights" was a time of senseless killings, raping and pillaging. The time of "fearless Muslims soldiers" was a time of slavery and persecution.

his wasn't King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Nor was it 1001 Arabian Nights. These were not times to be proud of. They were times to be extremely glad you didn't live in.

Just pondering about your sentence,

Aren't we slaves to govt we elect ourselves and then curse ourselves for electing such a dumbo,

Aren't we in a period where we see a country doing blatant crime by occupying a country and driving away the people living there and yet we sit silently.

Aren't some persecuted just because they belong to some race,religion or creed.

[Amadeus85]

So you would prefer glorifying the violence and destruction?

The times of the "brave knights" was a time of senseless killings, raping and pillaging. The time of "fearless Muslims soldiers" was a time of slavery and persecution.

his wasn't King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Nor was it 1001 Arabian Nights. These were not times to be proud of. They were times to be extremely glad you didn't live in.

Yup nothing like modern total wat against civilians, nothing like atomic bombs sent on thousands of people, nothing like modern age Holocaust and Gulag, nothing like modern age death camps.

[titus]

Aren't we slaves to govt we elect ourselves and then curse ourselves for electing such a dumbo

In a sense maybe, but then we have the option of electing someone else later if we so choose. That option was not even thought of back then. We also have checks and balances in order to limit the power of those that we elect. But are you seriously comparing that to enforced slavery and menial labor? Tell me which you would choose and how many fractions of a second it would take you to make that decision.

Yup nothing like modern total wat against civilians, nothing like atomic bombs sent on thousands of people, nothing like modern age Holocaust and Gulag, nothing like modern age death camps.

Look at the number of people dying back then, then compare that to modern day. There is no comparison. Does it really matter if you die from a bullet or from a sword? Death is death, and the simple fact is that we live in a much safer world today than the people did back then.

If you want examples of total war against civilians then look at what happened a thousand years ago. Two thousand years ago. THAT was total warfare against civilians. Back then if you lost a war your population became slaves. They were spoils of war. That is, if they were lucky enough to not be massacred as a whole.

Research the average lifespan of someone 1000 years ago. Research how warfare was conducted. Research how minorities were treated. Research how those that were conquered were treated. Do that, then tell me why you disagree with me when I say that those days are nothing to be admired and it was definitely not some golden age of beautiful heroism.

[zakirs]

In a sense maybe, but then we have the option of electing someone else later if we so choose. That option was not even thought of back then. We also have checks and balances in order to limit the power of those that we elect. But are you seriously comparing that to enforced slavery and menial labor? Tell me which you would choose and how many fractions of a second it would take you to make that decision.



Look at the number of people dying back then, then compare that to modern day. There is no comparison. Does it really matter if you die from a bullet or from a sword? Death is death, and the simple fact is that we live in a much safer world today than the people did back then.

If you want examples of total war against civilians then look at what happened a thousand years ago. Two thousand years ago. THAT was total warfare against civilians. Back then if you lost a war your population became slaves. They were spoils of war. That is, if they were lucky enough to not be massacred as a whole.

Research the average lifespan of someone 1000 years ago. Research how warfare was conducted. Research how minorities were treated. Research how those that were conquered were treated. Do that, then tell me why you disagree with me when I say that those days are nothing to be admired and it was definitely not some golden age of beautiful heroism.

History was not always black and white bro ,

There were some brilliant rulers who made their kingdoms develop and brought peace and respect to people.I would love to live under such rulers then a bad democratic president/PM.That said so each system has its merits.

[GuestFellow]

Look at the number of people dying back then, then compare that to modern day. There is no comparison. Does it really matter if you die from a bullet or from a sword? Death is death, and the simple fact is that we live in a much safer world today than the people did back then.

People died of diseases as well.

Research the average lifespan of someone 1000 years ago. Research how warfare was conducted. Research how minorities were treated. Research how those that were conquered were treated. Do that, then tell me why you disagree with me when I say that those days are nothing to be admired and it was definitely not some golden age of beautiful heroism.

Sadly enough minorities are still mistreated in some parts of the world and leaders do declare war on other countries. Now we have more dangerous weapons which can kill hundred of innocent people.

[Argamemnon]

Must religion be peaceful to hold truth?

Yes, because God is just. A religion that calls for war and aggression (except in self-defense) can't be from God, the most Merciful and Compassionate.

[Sampharo]

Here's a question that came into my mind when I watched it:

Are the extremists really people with purely political motives or are their actions genuinely based on their ignorant understanding of the texts?

Based on my experience in studying them and speaking and debating with some of them, I would say it's a mixture of both.

For the higher leaders, there is a lot of political motivation and outright deliberate picking and choosing the statements of other khawarej scholars to feed to the public and their soldiers, most of the time fully knowing that their arguments don't hold water. On the lower levels, it's a mixture of anger at state of affairs and being fooled by the higher ups statements and fatwas, and despite seeing evidence to the contrary, dismiss it because they really want what they heard from their guys and want to support this rebellious effort against what otherwise is currently agreed upon to be corrupt rulership today.

Stories are ripe with those leaders who are calling for martyrdom and blowing oneself up and facing torture and war with bravery, while when the police surround them they will try to sneak out amidst their "women" wearing Burqa and veil to hide and run away, and would never risk themselves.

Many of them lie, and they are steeped in propaganda yet always seem to be illogical and not very smart, almost silly. Many of them are out there on the internet pushing their beliefs, and at the first wiff of opposition or peaceful evidence display, you receive a rant of accusations of apostacy and infidelity, and just say that you are the one trying to confuse him.

And God knows Best

[Al-Indunisiy]

This remind me of what I just found today.
Apparently, there are people who are disillusioned to the statement that Islam(or any other religions for that matter) is peaceful.
Here are the quotations:

second hand lover wrote:
SwordQuill wrote:
Psychobabble wrote:
...but overall I think Islam is a pretty peaceful religion.

Insert sardonic laughter. Tell that to the Sassanids. Tell it to the Byzantines. Tell it to Lounes Matoub, Theo van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and every person in the World Trade Center. But please don't try to pull that crap on me.
Um can I please point out that's called extremist behaviour and not indicative of the entire religion? If you're going to judge an entire religion on the actions of a few fundies then that's pretty.... well.... yeah.

It's pretty what? Why can't I judge a religion based on these people, these so-called "fundamentalists"? They happen to be some of the most pious people on this planet.

I knew someone was going to parrot that line. Can't judge a religion by its "fundamentalists," eh?

First of all, the people who stamped all over Sassanid Persia and Byzantine Syria were not "fundamentalists" by any modern definition. This was the Rashidun Caliphate. These were people who actually knew Muhammed. They weren't the fringe; they were the religion. The original leader, Abu Bakr, was the first male convert to Islam. So tell me again how I can't judge the religion based on his actions.

Second, I have to wonder if all you read were the words "World Trade Center" and responded to that. If so, then I'll simply say that these men did what they did because they honestly believed that they would be rewarded in the afterlife, as per what they read in their sacred texts. I'm not a nutjob (or at least I hope not) conspiracy theorist who will say that every Muslim was secretly pleased over 9/11. Obviously that's not the case, but, if they were horrified, they were horrified because they were human, not because they were Muslims.

It is not extremists only who implement sharia law. It is not extremists only who dream of a world in which there are no infidels. Stop wasting my time with this myth of moderation. Was it extremists only who gathered in transglobal herds of millions to protest those Danish cartoons and hysterically demand the blood of the cartoonists? Either there were no moderates in those groups, in which case moderation is pretty much negligible, or there were, in which case moderation does not negate the willingness to kill (and die) for an idea . . . a concept that is at the very heart of what you call "fundamentalism."

(And, just to show that my disgust doesn't skew in just one direction, I'll be the first to point out that Muslims have suffered their share of religious violence. Just ask the Muslims living in the city formerly known as Bombay.)

What you call the "fundamentalists" are reading the same Koran as everyone else. So don't try to tell me that their faith is somehow a corruption of an innocent religion. Even if it was, do you have any idea how many people, and not just Muslims, actually believe that I should die for my irreligion? Can you agree with me that that is wrong? If not, then this discussion is over. I told you already, don't try to pull that carp on me.

(If you like, we can take this elsewhere, or we can wait for the mods to tell us to get out of the pool.)

[dragonofzenshu]

No.

Islam calls for the opposite.

Muslims, however, that are uneducated and only know violence, and misinterpret their religion and what jihad really means, DO encourage violence.

But Islam does not.