• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Islam promote violence?

darkstar

Member
Does Islam promote violence? We only have to look at terrorism today, most of it is caused my Muslims, and not even they can deny that. Also, almost everyday, Christians are being murdered, bashed, raped and cut to pieces by Islamic extremists in Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan and the list goes on. Dear Muslims, it is time to open your eyes and admit the truth. It is true that not all Muslims are violent. However, if push comes to shove, Muslims will do violent acts to protect their values and religious laws.

This may be true, but historically Christians can be accused and are guilty of the exact same thing.

Witch burnings, inquisition, crusades. Modern religious oppression of non Christians.

The point is that anyone can easily kill or die for their religious beliefs. Islam itself does not teach violence as a part of its doctrine. There are ideas on when violence may be acceptable, but it doesn't tell people "Go forth and kill people" that's just not true.

The thing is that extremists twist Islam to fit THEIR views. They cherry pick things that support their violence to gain recruits and justify their actions.

What surprises me, is 99% of all people that attack Islam have never actually read their Holy book, have never sat and talked with a Muslim. How can you make a broad generalization of a people without knowledge.
Ya know, I don't think all Christians believe the same or agree with Westboro Baptist Church, why would you think all Muslims agree with a savage group of extremists?
 

darkstar

Member
The questions that need to be asked are:

Does Islam produce a greater number of fundamentalists than other religions? Why or why not?

Does Islam produce a greater proportion of violent fundamentalists than other religions? Why or why not?

Does Islam produce a greater proportion of believers who act counter to the intended teachings? Is so, then there is an assumption about human nature incorporated into the body of teachings that is counter (or not included in) to human nature. (If not, then the issue is largely moot; no human ideology is flawless).




Badran:

As I recall there are explicit portions of the Qu'ran that state that no Muslim is to harm any tree or harm livestock or otherwise render their enemy's land uninhabitable (I seem to recall that children were not too be harmed as well). Why doesn't this get followed?

Originally Islam respected "people of the book" such that they did not kill them when they conquered their lands. This has obviously changed. Why?

And while a Muslim might not view conversion by the sword as mass murder it certainly does put into perspective the flagrant bias that can and does occur against "infidel." I may not agree that Islam makes people violent, but there certainly seems a strong case for bigotry. American service women who end up in Islamic countries often get called whores (or other nasty names) because of the way they dress. Now having served in the military I know for a fact that our uniforms hardly qualify as a "whore's uniform," and I certainly take issue with any generalization that attempts to posit that all service women are sexually loose.

The only explanation I can come up with for the amount of irrational hate it takes to strap HE to a 3 year old child and then force the child into a car that crashes a check point or strap live grenades to an infant and leave the child for service members to try to aid is that there is something wrong with their culture. And while I am willing to entertain the notion that the religion isn't to blame, can you really claim that it is being an effective measure at stopping this sort of behavior? The Al-Jezeera network doesn't seem to be criticizing such behavior on a daily basis; the religious leaders aren't decrying such behavior on a daily basis, and yet it happens often enough that service members have to have action plans for dealing with situations like those.

MTF

It's regrettable. But the actions against our men and women of uniform, especially using children are acts of a disparate regime that have already twisted Islam to fit their views. They are doing whatever they can to gain any advantage over us that they can.
Keep in mind that actions like these aren't uncommon.

Africa has many warlords that force young boys to fight and die for their causes, and in Vietnam there were many cases of children being given grenades and sent to blow up GIs. One can't blame religion for all acts of desperation made by bad people.
 

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
Perhaps something that can help is starting by recognizing the fact that Muslims don't view Muhammad as a rapist and a mass murderer. So, they wouldn't be getting this kind of examples out of him.

Regarding the Quran, i clarified a bit earlier that the OP probably meant unjustified violence. That is, if the question is whether or not Islam is a non-violent religion, then the my answer and my opinion is obviously no. However, if the question is does Islam promote unjustified violence, such as killing civilians, then again, no it doesn't.

That's like saying some people don't view Hitler as a racist. There's a verse where its mentioned that Muhammed and his people killed off men in tribes, taken the children as slaves, and married young women who were spared. That was rape. Someone who raped others, was a rapist. Therefore Muhammed was a rapist.

Multiple times, the Quran calls for Muslims to kill the non believers. Most of these non believers were civilians. Therefore the Quran promotes unjustified violence.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's like saying some people don't view Hitler as a racist. There's a verse where its mentioned that Muhammed and his people killed off men in tribes, taken the children as slaves, and married young women who were spared. That was rape. Someone who raped others, was a rapist. Therefore Muhammed was a rapist.

Multiple times, the Quran calls for Muslims to kill the non believers. Most of these non believers were civilians. Therefore the Quran promotes unjustified violence.

Wow! Were was it mentioned in the Quran to rape women and kill civilians. Care to share these interesting findings with us before i go and rape some women on my way to work?
 

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
Wow! Were was it mentioned in the Quran to rape women and kill civilians. Care to share these interesting findings with us before i go and rape some women on my way to work?

Quran 4:24
"And all married women are forbidden unto you EXCEPT those captives whom your right hand possesses. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery..."

Mohammed basically massacred villages, killing any male that had reached puberty, and taking the rest as slaves. And because Allah had allowed Mohammed's people (as stated in the above verse) to have sex with their slaves, Allah directly promoted rape. If you were a woman, whose family, fathers and brothers have died fighting, and were captured as a prisoner of war (even though you were completely innocent), why would you willingly allow yourself to have sex with your captors?

Considering that Muslims hold their prophet as the highest example of a good Muslim, this really scares me.

Apparently Allah and Mohammed get more detailed with how his people should have sex with their slaves, but its kinda grossing me out to be honest, so I'll stop here.

Quran 8:12
"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

Mohammed and his people killed hundreds of unarmed civilians/non-believers in his pursuit for power.
 

D-MITCH777

Member
Violence is in humans, not religious texts. If one is violent, especially if influenced by politics, then such a person would be likely to interpret texts in a manner that fits his way of thinking. They'd pick and choose verses/texts that fit their way of thinking, while totally ignoring other verses/texts that are against them.

If a person isnt violent, then they probably would have a different approach with texts. Among laymen, real independent scholarly interpretation (without the influence of previous beliefs or politics) rarely exists really.

Same applies to other religions too. The Torah is full of what can be perceived as violence. But the same concept applies to it too, just as it does with most religions.

No, i'm sure there is violence in Religious texts too.:yes:
 

muslim-

Active Member
Quran 4:24


Mohammed and his people killed hundreds of unarmed civilians/non-believers in his pursuit for power.

"Unarmed civilians" ? Thats a flat out lie. Rather when entering Makkah, his famous speech "Go, for you are free" to the prisoners who some were great enemies previously.

As for wars, yes, they were tortured and killed for years, and when gaining independence, wars did happen, so what?

As for slavery etc, yes even until a few decades ago slavery existed and centuries before prophet Muhammad, and even when other prophets existed. Yet so many teachings about repentance from certain things involved freeing slaves. His companions and many practiced this and always encouraged it. So understanding different paradigms is very important for a proper understanding far from very narrow and shallow ways of thinking.

That said, atheists were always on top of the list whenever in power when it comes to killing. Theres no logical reason for an atheist to not kill or do anything bad if it serves his purpose. Nor is there a reason even for an atheist to reject incest even and following desires like creatures do. "Thinking", would only be a tool to rationalize such actions, since there's no consequences. It could be seen as being pragmatic!

So I dont think atheists of all people can really lecture others about morality. Please note im talking about the consequences on morality in atheist "thought" not certain people as individuals who would form their own beliefs, based on emotions/desires, regardless of what conclusions they reach.
 

muslim-

Active Member
No, i'm sure there is violence in Religious texts too.:yes:

See it really depends on whats implied when we ask "does religion promote violence?" . I mean, executing murderers is violence, defending yourself in war is violence. By no means do I think Islam or any religion for that matter is pacifist and says turn the other cheek literally. No one does that in real life and its not practical at all. I think such texts on peace revolve around the idea in this verse

"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing." (8:61)
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Quran 4:24
"And all married women are forbidden unto you EXCEPT those captives whom your right hand possesses. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery..."

This one is talking about what is legal and what is not, and slaves were part of these laws. I don't see your point here because based on my limited knowledge slavery was a normal practice until recently.

Mohammed basically massacred villages, killing any male that had reached puberty, and taking the rest as slaves.

Proof?!

And because Allah had allowed Mohammed's people (as stated in the above verse) to have sex with their slaves, Allah directly promoted rape.

What kind of messed up reasoning is that? :sarcastic

You missed the verses before, they were talking about ALL of those whom Muslims are either allowed or not allowed to get married with.

Show me please where did Allah promoted rape in the Quran? enlighten us!

If you were a woman, whose family, fathers and brothers have died fighting, and were captured as a prisoner of war (even though you were completely innocent), why would you willingly allow yourself to have sex with your captors?

Hmmmm, maybe you should move your rant about the moral of slavery somewhere else. Start a new thread and talk as much as you want about it. For now you better stay on topic.

Considering that Muslims hold their prophet as the highest example of a good Muslim, this really scares me.

Apparently Allah and Mohammed get more detailed with how his people should have sex with their slaves, but its kinda grossing me out to be honest, so I'll stop here.

I'll go now have sex with my little precious slave girl whom i have invaded her tribe and killed her family. :beach:

Quran 8:12
"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

Mohammed and his people killed hundreds of unarmed civilians/non-believers in his pursuit for power.

1- This verse in specific was talking about what happened in the battle field.
2- Angels did what been described in the verse, not the Muslims.

If you believe that this verse was talking about killing civilians then prove it. I'm all ears.
 

e2ekiel

Member
If you believe that this verse was talking about killing civilians then prove it. I'm all ears.


Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
Is this a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell?

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous? As it contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
Is this a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell?

The verse doesn't state that.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous? As it contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time

How do you know they were not under attack? How much did you read and study about what happened back then if you don't mind me asking?
 

muslim-

Active Member
Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
Is this a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell?

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous? As it contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time

Theres no evidence at all in the first verse supporting any claim.

As for the second one, mind posting the verse right after that clearly states " And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able." ? Also, this verse came down because of the story of Abdullah Ibn Jahsh. Chances are, you never even heard the name before.

Using google to quote verses randomly isnt a very sound way of seeking knowledge if thats what you're seeking. If you're not, and you're pre-decided, then no need to quote verses to begin with, because its not them that made you hold your position, you'd just be looking for verses that support the claim / belief you already have.
 

e2ekiel

Member
Using google to quote verses randomly isnt a very sound way of seeking knowledge if thats what you're seeking. If you're not, and you're pre-decided, then no need to quote verses to begin with, because its not them that made you hold your position, you'd just be looking for verses that support the claim / belief you already have.

If you claim to be a muslim, then I am prepared to hear you intepretation of these text. Explain the context which these were written.
 

muslim-

Active Member
If you claim to be a muslim, then I am prepared to hear you intepretation of these text. Explain the context which these were written.

ok, but please note that I am putting effort and time into this, as many texts arent translated so I have to either translate, or find translation of specific quotes/narrations online.. but since this is your reply you seem to be sincere so here is my explanation. A necessary background on what was going on at the time is important for a proper understanding.

The beginning of Islam was in Makkah, it spread secretly. Whoever was discovered to reject idols and accept the messege was either killed or tortured. There was great oppression. The prophet was hurt by the state, so he ordered some to go to a Christian King in Absynia, who was known to be a just ruler. He offered shelter and peace after asking them about their story and beliefs. (He later on became Muslim). There are so many stories about persecution and how painful it was for them but I wont mention the stories here.

(However, I recommend you watch the movie "The Messege" to understand what it was really like. It will certainly help in knowing the background and events of that time (even if you dont believe in Islam), and therefore not only understand verses better, but Muslims as well, and hadeeths.)

Anyhow, later on, the people of Madinah, known as Ansar , had accepted the message, and the Muslims had to migrate to Madinah. This date is when the Muslim calender starts. They split their wealth with those who migrated from Makkah, offering complete support and aid, as they had left everything behind. Some would say that they should now resist oppression and fight, but the prophet peace be upon him asked them to be patient.

The following is from a website (not my words) :

Abdullah ibn Jahsh became a Muslim before the Prophet entered the House of al-Arqam which became a meeting place, a school and a place of refuge for the early Muslims. He was thus one of the first to accept Islam.

When the Prophet gave permission for his Companions to emigrate to Madinah to avoid further persecution from Quraysh, Abdullah ibn Jahsh was the second to leave, preceded only by Abu Salamah. Emigrating was not a new experience for Abdullah. He and some members of his immediate family had migrated before to Abyssinia. This time, however, his migration was on a far bigger scale. His family and relatives--men, women and children, migrated with him. In fact, his whole clan had become Muslims and accompanied him.

There was an air of desolation as they left Makkah. Their homes appeared sad and depressed as if no one had lived there before. No sound of conversation emanated from behind those silent walls.

Abdullah's clan were not long gone when the alerted Quraysh leaders came out and made the rounds of the districts in Makkah to find out which Muslims had left and who had remained. Among these leaders were Abu Jahl and Utbah ibn Rabiah. Utah looked at the houses of the Banu Jahsh through which the dusty winds were blowing. He banged on the doors and shouted:

"The houses of the Banu Jahsh have become empty and are weeping for its occupants." "Who were these people anyway," said Abu Jahl derisively, "that houses should weep for them." He then laid claim to the house of Abdullah ibn Jahsh. It was the most beautiful and expensive of the houses. He began to dispose freely of its contents as a king would share out his possessions .

Later, when Abdullah ibn Jahsh heard what Abu Jahl had done to his house, he mentioned it to the Prophet, peace be upon him, who said:

"Aren't you satisfied, O Abdullah, with what God has given you instead, a house in Paradise?"

"Yes, messenger of God," he replied, and became at peace with himself and completely satisfied.

(Now my words + words of others)

Later on, the prophet peace be upon him sent Abdullah Ibn Jahsh to collect information on the movements of Quraish. He and those with him were excited and happy to do so. This was during months known as the sacred months in which all forms of fighting and bloodshed was considered really wrong even in the eyes of the idol worshippers.

However, they ended up fighting with them and took two prisoners back to Mamdinah. They went to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and informed him about what they had done. The Prophet was greatly upset and strongly condemned their action. "By God, I did not command you to fight. I only commanded you to gather information on the Quraysh and observe their movements."

Abdullah ibn Jahsh and his men then knew that they had fallen into disgrace and felt certain that they were ruined because of their disobeying the command of the Prophet. They began to feel the pressure as their Muslim brothers censured them and avoided them whenever they passed one another. And they would say, "These went against the command of the Prophet."

Their discomfiture grew when they learnt that the Quraysh had taken the incident as a means to discredit the Prophet and denounce him among the tribes. The Quraysh were saying: "Muhammad has defiled the sacred month. He has shed blood in it, plundered wealth and captured men."

Imagine the extent of the sadness felt by Abdullah ibn Jahsh and his men at what had happened, more so because of the acute embarrassment they had caused the Prophet.

They were sorely tormented and the agony weighed heavily on them. Then came the good news that Allah--Glorified be He--was pleased with what they had done and had sent down revelation to His Prophet about this matter. Imagine their happiness! People came and embraced them, congratulating them on the good news and reciting to them what had been revealed in the glorious Quran about their action.

"They ask you about fighting in the sacred month. Say: Fighting therein is an enormity as well as preventing (people) from the path of God and disbelief in Him. Expelling people from the Masjid al Haram is a greater sin in the eyes of God. Moreover, persecution is greater than killing. And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able.

Ibn Abbas raa (companion of the prophet and scholar of the Qur'aan) said that when fighting (back) did become eventually allowed, some disliked it. So its basically about human nature, and how sometimes people are forced to fight even if they dont want to. Its really as simple as that. (Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.)

This is in summary. Hope my thoughts weren't too disconnected.
 
Last edited:

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Badran:

As I recall there are explicit portions of the Qu'ran that state that no Muslim is to harm any tree or harm livestock or otherwise render their enemy's land uninhabitable (I seem to recall that children were not too be harmed as well). Why doesn't this get followed?

Yes, both in the Quran and Hadiths this does get mentioned, in different ways. I wouldn't say that it doesn't get followed, rather that the people in power mostly don't follow it. Add to that, that today pretty much all wars or conflicts Muslims are engaged in that i'm aware of (or lets say most), are represented by groups of religious people of certain type of thinking (those who might justify things like suicide bombings), in other words: Religious fanatical terrorists. And those people, like other governments engaged in those conflicts with them, don't seem to have a high standard regarding ethics and morals to put it lightly. The difference as i see it between those two sides is that one is simply hiding directly behind religion.

The same kind of nonsense is used everywhere to justify this kind of violence and damage in my view, supposed practical reasons. Its just put into different terms. For some people the justifications are things like "protecting our freedoms" or "our values", for those people its things like their weak status. It helps in gaining sympathy. Alongside some poor reasoning like "they all voted for him", and their supposed religious devotion, it just gets some support. Particularly because those people supporting or sympathizing with them are either directly or indirectly under some pressure from oppression and seeing serious in justice done towards them by a stronger enemy. That, however doesn't mean that most Muslims today have given up these values, or don't follow them anymore.

Originally Islam respected "people of the book" such that they did not kill them when they conquered their lands. This has obviously changed. Why?

Same as above, i don't see that as changed. I'm not sure what you're thinking of when you're saying this, but what is for sure is its not happening everywhere were Muslims and Christians are living together for example.

And while a Muslim might not view conversion by the sword as mass murder it certainly does put into perspective the flagrant bias that can and does occur against "infidel."

I would agree, if that was actually the case, but its not. If you're referring to Muhammad (pbuh), there was no such thing as conversion by the sword. Incidents revolving around such things are both controversial and are greatly misrepresented even beyond the already controversial record to start with like i said.

I may not agree that Islam makes people violent, but there certainly seems a strong case for bigotry. American service women who end up in Islamic countries often get called whores (or other nasty names) because of the way they dress. Now having served in the military I know for a fact that our uniforms hardly qualify as a "whore's uniform," and I certainly take issue with any generalization that attempts to posit that all service women are sexually loose.

The only explanation I can come up with for the amount of irrational hate it takes to strap HE to a 3 year old child and then force the child into a car that crashes a check point or strap live grenades to an infant and leave the child for service members to try to aid is that there is something wrong with their culture. And while I am willing to entertain the notion that the religion isn't to blame, can you really claim that it is being an effective measure at stopping this sort of behavior?

Couple of points:

1) I would agree that there is bigotry and intolerance considerably in Muslim countries. Not particularly much more than other countries in my view, but rather in a more backward way. Or a type that people in other places have gone past to a certain extent.

2) What you're talking about however is directly related to both culture and the conditions of those countries, the circumstances they are in. Things you speak of occur every time, in any place where such conditions are met. Conditions such as oppression, poverty, poor education, being involved in a war with a much stronger enemy that is destroying their country etc...

3) Religion can only effectively decrease such things when the people in question take it seriously, or understand it properly. Now, considering that most Muslims do not engage in what you're talking about, we can't claim that its not effective just because some aren't tamed down by its teachings in regards to their reactions to certain things.

The Al-Jezeera network doesn't seem to be criticizing such behavior on a daily basis;

Al-Jezeera is not special in anyway, they have their biases just like any other network. Which makes me disgusted with them particularly because they are supposed to be providing neutral news, and they most certainly don't.

the religious leaders aren't decrying such behavior on a daily basis, and yet it happens often enough that service members have to have action plans for dealing with situations like those.

MTF

They do decry such things, not a daily basis however of course.
 
Last edited:

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's like saying some people don't view Hitler as a racist.

No, its not. And your comparison is too stupid for me to actually put any effort into trying to show why thats not the case.

There's a verse where its mentioned that Muhammed and his people killed off men in tribes, taken the children as slaves, and married young women who were spared. That was rape.

Given that those supposed verses have already been addressed, i'll just add a sincere advice: Making stuff up won't help. Neither will speaking about things you know little to nothing about in such a confident manner.

Someone who raped others, was a rapist. Therefore Muhammed was a rapist.

Except he didn't rape anybody, so your reasoning is a little flawed.

Multiple times, the Quran calls for Muslims to kill the non believers. Most of these non believers were civilians.

Wrong on both accounts. It doesn't call for killing THE non-believers, it was addressing certain incidents and certain people, not in general.

As to most of them being civilians, feel free to demonstrate where did that happen (in other words, it didn't).

Therefore the Quran promotes unjustified violence.

Given that each step of your reasoning up there was flawed, i think its safe to say you've come no where near demonstrating that.
 

A-ManESL

Well-Known Member
Some quotes from the Quran regarding other faiths:

Quote:
Those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians and Sabeans,[in fact] anyone who believes in God and the Last Day, and actshonorably will receive their earnings from their Lord: no fear will lieupon them nor need they feel saddened.-2:62

Quote:
[But] they are not all alike: among the followers of earlier revelation there are upright people, who recite God's messages throughout the night, and prostrate themselves [before Him]. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and vie with one another in doing good works: and these are among the righteous.-3:113-114

Quote:
Nonetheless, those who believe in- the prophets who dated for back in the past and those who profess Judaism and the various sects of the Sabeites and of the Sabaeans and the Christians and those who fall in line with the prophet Muhammad; whoever believes in Allah, and acknowledges the truth of Resurrection and Judgement and imprints his deeds with wisdom and piety, shall Heaven reward them for their homage thereto, and no fear nor dread shall fall upon them nor shall they come to grief.-5:69
 

Jason

Member
Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
Is this a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell?

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous? As it contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time
The first verses are stating that the Muslims would be annihilated if they don't go to battle and God would raise up a new people to fulfill His Plans. The second is reinforcing that they would be annihilated if they didn't fight.
 

D-MITCH777

Member
See it really depends on whats implied when we ask "does religion promote violence?" . I mean, executing murderers is violence, defending yourself in war is violence. By no means do I think Islam or any religion for that matter is pacifist and says turn the other cheek literally. No one does that in real life and its not practical at all. I think such texts on peace revolve around the idea in this verse

"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing." (8:61)

This should be authentic to you considering you are a follower of as-Salaf as-Saleh. In the book 'biography of the Prophet Muhammad' by Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab on page 264 to 265 under the subtitle of '' The sending of Sa'd bin Zaid it says:

Then he(Muhammad) sent Sa'd bin Zaid bin Malik bin Abd bin Ka'b bin Abdil Ashhal Al-Ashhali Al-Ansari in the month of Ramadam to Manat( Pagan Arab God), which was at Qudaid, in Al-Mushallal and belonged to Al-Aws, Al-Khazraj, Ghassan and others.

He set out with twenty riders and went on until he reached it and he found it's custodian there. The custodian asked him:'' What do you want?''
He said''To destroy it''
He said:''That remains to be seen'' So Sa'd advanced, walking towards it and a naked, black woman with tangled hair came out, invoking woe(upon them)and beating her chest. The custodian said to the idol: '' Manat, before you are some of your enemies(i.e protect yourself from them)''. Then Sa'd struck the woman and killed her and advanced to the idol and destroyed it, but they did not find anything in its storehouse.
 
Top