Does Islam promote violence?

[D-MITCH777]

You can't judge a religion simply by studying the characters of it's folowers. In order to have a genuine image of Islam, each need to study what the Qur'an says and based on that give their opinion. Let's suppose in Saudi Arabia all the muslims are violent and promote violence, that isn't evidence that Islam is the reason behind it. To be correct and not get oneself fooled by the media, simply go to the core which is the Qur'an and the Hadith.

Both the Quran and Hadith have verses that promote violence.

Quran3:151
"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Quran 4:74
"Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Quran 8:12
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"


Bukhari 52:177
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari 52:256
The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

Muslim 1:33
the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

I not saying that Islam is full of hate, but these verses make it clear that it does promote acts of violence against non-believers.

 

[Looncall]

You can't judge a religion simply by studying the characters of it's folowers. In order to have a genuine image of Islam, each need to study what the Qur'an says and based on that give their opinion. Let's suppose in Saudi Arabia all the muslims are violent and promote violence, that isn't evidence that Islam is the reason behind it. To be correct and not get oneself fooled by the media, simply go to the core which is the Qur'an and the Hadith.

To non-believers, it is the behaviour of believers that counts. Why should anyone care what is in scriptures if the believers do not follow them?

If many believers turn out to be violent, one must conclude that either their religion is ineffective, or that it promotes violence. If adherence to some religion turns out to be correlated to violent behaviour, the same conclusions are even more strongly indicated.

 

[Nooj]

Is violence and promoting violence bad?

 

[beenie]

Yes, of course

Care to expand your thoughts?

To non-believers, it is the behaviour of believers that counts. Why should anyone care what is in scriptures if the believers do not follow them?

If many believers turn out to be violent, one must conclude that either their religion is ineffective, or that it promotes violence. If adherence to some religion turns out to be correlated to violent behaviour, the same conclusions are even more strongly indicated.

Islam is both a religious ideology as well as a political one. Many of the violent actions Muslims take are political in nature under the guise of religion. It's wrong no matter how you phrase it, but to say the religion itself "promotes" violence is hugely generalizing.

It's interesting how people accuse Muslims of not following scripture by acting out violently (because supposedly Islam promotes it) but no one accuses Muslims who DON'T act out violently from not following scripture (because supposedly Islam promotes it). You can't have it both ways.

 

[Caladan]

It seems that all the major religions have been misused in this regard, because of the very nature of politics and geopolitical realities.
even Buddhist countries have been involved in ethnic cleansing in modern times.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems that all the major religions have been misused in this regard, because of the very nature of politics and geopolitical realities.
even Buddhist countries have been involved in ethnic cleansing in modern times.

Nor is the misuse limited to religion as both communism and social darwinism attest.

 

[Caladan]

Nor is the misuse limited to religion as both communism and social darwinism attest.

Precisely. on paper communism can be presented as egalitarian and promising. but geopolitics will bury the ideal.

 

[gnostic]

Islam is both a religious ideology as well as a political one. Many of the violent actions Muslims take are political in nature under the guise of religion. It's wrong no matter how you phrase it, but to say the religion itself "promotes" violence is hugely generalizing.

I, and I think others, understand that it could be political issue involving certain acts.

However, I think it is naive for you to dismiss that decision (to act violent) made are not affected by religion (in this case, Islam). Religion may be just ONE FACTOR in their motive towards their action, but it may not be the whole reason.

I seriously think you can't deny that religious fervor or fanaticism is involve in certain actions. For these people religious symbol, like Islam or the Muhammad, played a role in their action, as well as political or social circumstances.

Nor do I think that you can't simply and always dismiss as media biased.

And I believe what looncall to be true, because I think this way to about religious people:

To non-believers, it is the behaviour of believers that counts. Why should anyone care what is in scriptures if the believers do not follow them?

The Qur'an may say or teach this or that, but whether they follow what it say to the letter or misunderstand it, is beside the point. They believe they are doing for their religion, so how can say it is not?

 

[beenie]

I, and I think others, understand that it could be political issue involving certain acts.

Good, thanks.

However, I think it is naive for you to dismiss that decision (to act violent) made are not affected by religion (in this case, Islam). Religion may be just ONE FACTOR in their motive towards their action, but it may not be the whole reason.

I seriously think you can't deny that religious fervor or fanaticism is involve in certain actions. For these people religious symbol, like Islam or the Muhammad, played a role in their action, as well as political or social circumstances.

Religious fervor and THEIR interpretation of the religion is to blame. If Islam really preached all this violence, why is it only a few thousand Muslims act violently? Because THEY have interpreted things literally and warped it to fit THEIR needs. I recognize that those verses were written in a specific time, for a specific purpose. It's those who accept everything as literal that tend to back these teachings (and act out).

Nor do I think that you can't simply and always dismiss as media biased.

I didn't do that; my observations were in addition to the zealots who act out on supposed religious doctrine. If you've read any of my posts from before, you'd know that.

The Qur'an may say or teach this or that, but whether they follow what it say to the letter or misunderstand it, is beside the point. They believe they are doing for their religion, so how can say it is not?

For the same reason any irrational person feels they're doing horrible things in the name of whatever (government resistance, political gains)...they're wrong.

 

[gnostic]

Religious fervor and THEIR interpretation of the religion is to blame. If Islam really preached all this violence, why is it only a few thousand Muslims act violently? Because THEY have interpreted things literally and warped it to fit THEIR needs. I recognize that those verses were written in a specific time, for a specific purpose. It's those who accept everything as literal that tend to back these teachings (and act out).

Which still make it related to Islam. Whether they misinterpret the Qur'an or not, or whether it to do with their "Islamic" zealous or not, it still fall back to Islam.

Sure, I know that we can't base everything on Islam alone, but it is one of the factors for their action, regardless if you think it is "Islamic" or not.

And it is not just what the Qur'an teaches. They see Muhammad as the hero and role-model. And having being taught about the history of Muhammad, they also tried to emulate him, thereby seeing their cause align with with his cause, whether it is true or not.

And there lie a pitfall, of trying to emulate their hero. Muslims who choose to act violent, will always see and assume that they are right, so they will do everything for their cause, no matter what the consequences.

 

[Badran]

The Qur'an may say or teach this or that, but whether they follow what it say to the letter or misunderstand it, is beside the point. They believe they are doing for their religion, so how can say it is not?

Because the thread asked "Does Islam promote violence?", not whether or not some people take or find justification in it for their unjustified violence towards others.

 

[Badran]

To non-believers, it is the behaviour of believers that counts. Why should anyone care what is in scriptures if the believers do not follow them?

Then ask about the believers. Ask whether or not some believers or Muslims believe in, engage in and promote violence towards others, and the answer would be a simple and resounding yes. However, when one does something as silly as this:

If many believers turn out to be violent, one must conclude that either their religion is ineffective, or that it promotes violence. If adherence to some religion turns out to be correlated to violent behaviour, the same conclusions are even more strongly indicated.

Then comes back to say "it doesn't matter what the scripture say" etc... that means they're not really attempting to reach any honest conclusions.

Also, regarding this part:

If many believers turn out to be violent, one must conclude that either their religion is ineffective, or that it promotes violence

Really? What about if even much more believers don't turn out to be violent, you know, as is the case in reality today and always? What does that mean?

 

[Ardhanariswar]

I don't understand when people say that the violent Muslims are misquoting or misreading the Quran. I've read parts of the Quran, and there's a ton of violence. Muhammed committed many atrocities, from mass murders to rape. Any Muslim can look up to Muhammed as an example of an ideal Muslim as he is their prophet, and do the same terrible things. And many do.

 

[Badran]

I don't understand when people say that the violent Muslims are misquoting or misreading the Quran. I've read parts of the Quran, and there's a ton of violence. Muhammed committed many atrocities, from mass murders to rape. Any Muslim can look up to Muhammed as an example of an ideal Muslim as he is their prophet, and do the same terrible things. And many do.

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.

 

[muslim-]

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.

 

[Looncall]

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.

Are you saying that whether or not people are violent has little to do with religion? In that case, the religion is startlingly ineffective. As it happens, I agree with your view.
That said, I think that there can be a considerable effect of religion promoting bad actions simply by furnishing an excuse.

I quite like Weinberg's comment that good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I quite like Weinberg's comment that good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

Weinberg was and is wrong. It takes dogmatism to make good people do bad things.

 

[muslim-]

Are you saying that whether or not people are violent has little to do with religion? In that case, the religion is startlingly ineffective. As it happens, I agree with your view.

That said, I think that there can be a considerable effect of religion promoting bad actions simply by furnishing an excuse.

I quite like Weinberg's comment that good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

About religion being ineffective. I dont think thats main the goal of religion to begin with but thats a whole other topic.

Yes religion is sometimes used as an excuse, and sometimes "used" for good things too. I see it like having a knife, you can make lots of use of it, but if someone angry uses it to kill, its not the knife to blame. If the knife wasnt there, they'd just use something else, as would the good people.

 

[Jethro]

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.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

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