Violence in Islam?

[nash8]

As stated earlier, I don't believe any religion to be inherently violent. I only think peoples interpretations of religions to be violent.

As evidenced many time throughout this thread, you can simply remove one part of the verse, and it becomes violent, instead of a call to defends ones most basic rights as a human being.

For example, If I were to make the following statement it could be miscontstrued in many different ways.

"I would kill someone, if they tried to hurt my family"

Now if you only take the first half of the statement, it definitely sounds violent. But if you take the whole statement, not so much.

 

[Sleeppy]

Christianity teaches not to resist evil, even to the point of death. Hence, the crucifixion and continued martyrdom of truthful Christians. Martin Luther King Jr. is a shining example. That is peace.

 

[danieldemol]

Deutronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
Deu:21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Deu:21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Oh cool. So not only violence but you get to have slaves and keep the beautiful women...
...Yeah, this is peaceful enough

You mean just like how the Jewish lady Safiyyah bint Huyayy was captured from the Banu Nadir tribe?

Are you contending that the early companions in Islam didn't take female slaves from captives taken during war and have sexual relations with them?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

"I would kill someone, if they tried to hurt my family"

Now if you only take the first half of the statement, it definitely sounds violent. But if you take the whole statement, not so much.

That's still violent, it's just reasonable violence.

 

[ignition]

Christianity teaches not to resist evil, even to the point of death. Hence, the crucifixion and continued martyrdom of truthful Christians. Martin Luther King Jr. is a shining example. That is peace.

So why did Christian fight in droves against Nazism?

 

[Sleeppy]

So why did Christian fight in droves against Nazism?

If they shed blood or even hate another person, by not loving and understanding the grace of the Almighty Creator toward all of mankind, then they aren't acting in the full capacity of heavenly law/understanding. Our command is eternal life, because it isn't of sin and death. It isn't of men. It's of God. We put on preservation, which is godliness. Evil does not survive. Evil is appointed limited time, and strict borders. Godliness exceeds those borders. 'What is impossible with men, is possible with God.' The primary goal remains preservation and equal preservation for the whole.

 

[nash8]

That's still violent, it's just reasonable violence.

lol true, but you see the point I'm trying to make right.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

lol true, but you see the point I'm trying to make right.

I see the point you're trying to make, but that doesn't stop violence from being violence. People need to get rid of that negative stigma attached to the word "violence". It's just as much a part of our nature as love is. If our ability to be violent was taken away, we'd get eaten by larger animals and that would be the end of our species.

 

[danieldemol]

The primary goal remains preservation and equal preservation for the whole.

"Preservation" is an interesting term, because if you have wolves amongst the lambs, preservation of the whole would seem impossible from my limited perspective.

I sometimes think that if martyrdom of the non-violent alone were enough to stop all killing, then surely with all the people who have been martyred throughout the ages, all killing would be ceased by now.

For example surely if pacifism were the best means of preservation for the most people, after killing millions of Jews Hitler would have turned into a choir boy if being slaughtered were capable of exerting sufficient influence to enable preservation of either the whole or at least the greatest portion of the people?

 

[Sleeppy]

"Preservation" is an interesting term, because if you have wolves amongst the lambs, preservation of the whole would seem impossible from my limited perspective.

I sometimes think that if martyrdom of the non-violent alone were enough to stop all killing, then surely with all the people who have been martyred throughout the ages, all killing would be ceased by now.

For example surely if pacifism were the best means of preservation for the most people, after killing millions of Jews Hitler would have turned into a choir boy if being slaughtered were capable of exerting sufficient influence to enable preservation of either the whole or at least the greatest portion of the people?

Not only martyrdom, but teaching and understanding. Martyrdom often stirs up revolutionary thought and action. The Holocaust, despite being an evil time, resulted and continues to result in, revolutionary thought for much of the world. No one wants another evil time quite like that one, and so we've taken it as a lesson of what not to do and what to guard against for the future. What's also important to remember is that the God I refer to promises life, regardless of the physical state.

If everyone were to take up this attitude that I refer to, there would be peace. But, these evil behaviours are attached to our physical beings. It is not always enough to institute external reactions to internal problems. With new technological, medical, and social progression accumulating, these internal problems will become accessible for solutions more directly. The social element will however remain the most important, for obvious reason; the wills of society must agree to even progress in a certain way.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So why did Christian fight in droves against Nazism?

The churches took a neutral stance during the Holocaust...

 

[danieldemol]

If everyone were to take up this attitude that I refer to, there would be peace. But, these evil behaviours are attached to our physical beings.

Given that these behaviors are attached to our physical being and we will always have our physical beings, do you think that there is a genuine possibility for everyone to take up this attitude such that there would be no aggressors left?

If the root cause of aggression is our physical nature surely the plant will keep sprouting for as long as the root remains.

Or do you maintain the inner conviction that absolute pacifism is more than just high minded - albeit wishful - thinking.

 

[Sleeppy]

No. I believe sin can become a thing of the past. Understanding DNA, understanding the ways our brain works, etc. A combination of greater social equality and medication where necessary. But, unless social equality is King, peace is very hard to maintain. When human beings fear each other, you need to begin turning the other way. This is the reason for nuclear weaponry, which is terrorism, and other forms of terrorism. People who love to cause and keep fear are cowards. They fear death so they love killing. Christianity removes the fear, by teaching love for your peers, which is love of life by peace. This way is prosperous beyond belief. Imagine removing monetary boundaries. Humanity would begin to evolve. So far, humanity is devolving.

 

[danieldemol]

I admit I don't have any real concept or understanding of what removing monetary boundaries could possibly mean without replacing it with a means containing similar social downsides. Perhaps you should begin a new thread elaborating on this topic for us to discuss?

 

[Sleeppy]

I admit I don't have any real concept or understanding of what removing monetary boundaries could possibly mean without replacing it with a means containing similar social downsides. Perhaps you should begin a new thread elaborating on this topic for us to discuss?

Sure. Begin the thread as you see fit.

 

[danieldemol]

Hi Sleeppy,
It occurred to me as an afterthought that having begun the thread we discussed, perhaps I should draw your attention to it lol.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/150653-removal-monetary-boundaries.html

 

[Aamer]

You mean just like how the Jewish lady Safiyyah bint Huyayy was captured from the Banu Nadir tribe?

Are you contending that the early companions in Islam didn't take female slaves from captives taken during war and have sexual relations with them?

I'm not defending Muslims. Some of them do despicable things. In the past and as we speak. But the scripture (Quran) does not allow it. The same can't be said for the Old Testament.

 

[Looncall]

I'm not defending Muslims. Some of them do despicable things. In the past and as we speak. But the scripture (Quran) does not allow it. The same can't be said for the Old Testament.

If, as we see demonstrated so often at present, following islam fails to curb violent behaviour, what does it matter what the quran contains?

 

[Aquitaine]

LOL! Christians and Muslims arguing over who's religion is more violent.... :biglaugh:

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

LOL! Christians and Muslims arguing over who's religion is more violent.... :biglaugh:

Like two 10 pound weights arguing over which one is heavier...