Answer More Complicated than Question

Please remember when quoting the Quran that, if a statement is found in a low number sura ie 3 that contradicts a statement on a higher numbered sura ie. 10 the satatement on the 3 supercedes the one on the sura 10. If there are no contradictions on a statement then it stands as it is. So when referencing the Quran please giver the reference so everyone can confirm the statement, just because it is in the Quran does not make it valid.I agree with Bill above, is Islam a religion of peace or war? Look at Muhammad's life to get your answer.

The question is simple enough. The answer is not comfortable for anyone wanting to be politically correct. Read the many citations from the Quran, Hadiths and Sira (on the life of the prophet and what he taught) cited on these threads by ex-Muslims and you get a picture that does not sit easy with anyone who looks at the material in an objective way. The scariest part of all is that no one is allowed to criticise the life of the prophet or the religion he founded - on orders by the prophet himself! Who wants to risk their life by indulging in a debate with Muslims? Not me!!! Let Muslims keep their prophet and their religion!

Mavaddat: "It is all man made and imaginary. This is evident from the fact that there is no investigation that we could do, even in principle, to determine whose understanding of God is the more correct or truer one."

Interesting philosophical point, though it should be noted that the same can be said for the whole of the scientific/empirical enterprise. There is no way, at least none that I am aware of, to evaluate science and empirical research outside of using its/their own tools. If we can't be realists with respect to religion or the tenets of religious belief, then we can't rightly be realists with respect to science. Clearly we are realists with the latter, in spite of our having no non-scientific 'justification' for it, and we're clearly rational in being such. Thus, so it would seem, we are also, at least prima facie, rational in being realists with respect to religion.

Bill:
For starters, there are a great many peaceful, merciful, loving passages in the Quran, as have been cited by the moderates here to disprove the violence of the religion. So pointing out the presence of violence in the Quran does not prove anything; clearly the importance of those passages is subject to interpretation. I think that's more significant than a simple "disagreement"; there are dramatically different things that all are called "Islam".

I just don't think what empirical evidence you have is enough to conclude that what falls under that label should be assumed violent. Lots of violence has been committed by Christians in the past, but we are told that those people were not being "truly" Christian. Given how powerfully social/cultural factors appear to shape the bent of a religion in a place and time (as you can see in the contrast between fundamentalist Islam and that of a couple panelists here), it appears that any can be used to excuse or condemn violence. Even if it is a true fact, the fact of Muslims being statistically more violent than members of some other religion over history is not enough to establish that the religion itself is inherently violent, I don't think.

David R
My point is not about how different people may define Islam. My point is that we may answer the question about Islam based on what actually happened in history. Many people in the West seem to have adopted the view that because people disagree about a particular question therefore it is impossible to answer the question truthfully. The founder of Islam (Mohammad) advocated the use of violence in propogating his beliefs and his a significant number of (not all) followers have followed his example throughout history.

After reading over the responses I wonder why it is so natural to avoid the question. I thought the question was "Do you think Islam is a violent religion? Many of the responses seemed to immdediately shift to other questions related to Christianity or religions in general and therefore avoid the question.
Islam, according to Mohammad, is a religious/cultural/political movement. Taken on its own terms Islam cannot undergo the seperation of church and state without ceasing to be Islam. The words and actions of Mohommad and his early followers are perfectly consistent with an understanding of Islam as a religious/cultural/political movement. Within 100 years of the death of Mohammad (632 A.D.) Muslims conquered an area stretching from central Asia to Western China and had it not been for Charles Martel (battle of Poitiers, 732) they would have conquered parts of Western Europe. In light of these facts it seems strange to even question that Muslims have from the beginning made use of violence to spread the influence of their religion. Some Muslims are seeking to practice their religion today in the same manner.

The question is even worse than "Is New York a hot city?" At least New York is one discrete entity.

I'm finding the attempts to answer this question with "Yes" or "No" to be just ridiculous. What is the entity "Islam" that we are even talking about, here? The way the religion is interpreted and lived by Group A? Group B? Maybe how it happens to be most frequently interpreted at this point in time? The effort is completely hopeless and proves nothing.

Everyone is just quoting verses that agree with their views - and citing people who agree with their views - because there is no way to explain what makes THAT Islam and what makes the opposition's own sources NOT Islam.

KILI FAQIRAN, Pakistan (AP) - The boy with the knife looks barely 12. In a high-pitched voice, he denounces the bound, blindfolded man before him as an American spy. Then he hacks off the captive's head to cries of "God is great!" and hoists it in triumph by the hair.

Bishop Wright,

I agree completely with you. The answer is not black and white.

The christian religion was a extremely violent religion for many years. And in my opinion still is. Even though many christians will tell me that their religion does not condone violence of any sort. In reality anyone who picks up a rifle and kills another person is breaking Gods Law, in my opinion.
As a youth I was told never to kill another person. In the infantry I was told just the opposite. To kill as many men as I could. That it was the right thing to do. That my killing other men was for "God, Country, and Applepie!"

I think the Islamic religion is the same way. They kill for a political belief masked by their religious beliefs. Today I believe that no country, or warring faction has a monopoly on God.

I think we all do God a serious disservice when we use his name to justify killing other people.
I think that people find a religion that will mesh with their own beliefs in regards to killing fellow humans.

And then there are the so called pacifists like one of my brother-in laws. His religion states no killing under any circumstances. He stood by that belief during the Vietnam war. I still believed in God and Country. Or I should say, Religion and Country. Not that I was religious. But at that age I thought the three, God, Country, and religion were synonymous. I was fighting for the first two beliefs, not the third one.

I see many such men, or boys who believed just like myself at the time. Everyone wanted to make sense out of all the senseless killing and violence. So many found answers in the christian religion. Others began a life long hate relationship with God and religion. They believed the two were inseparable. If you hated one, you hated the other. I was in the second group for a very long time.

So today I see relgion in relationship to the country that it exist in. How does a countrys politicians/leaders use the religion to garner support for the war or violence.

I think there are still even more issues to discuss that revolve around "is Islam a violent religion".

In summary. I think that the question is way to simplistic to even begin to formulate a serious answer.

As with Christianity.

Ireland for example. Former Yugoslavia.

I just finished reading Sam Harris' book, "The End of Faith", wherein he poses some interesting challenges to the faith-rationality issue, but specifically takes Islam to task for being inherently violent on the basis of the Koran's teachings (he also challenges Judaism and Christianity). I'm no expert on the Koran, but it seems clear that many Islamic countries are where Europe was 500 years ago, in certain respects. Low literacy, limited general education, wealth collected in the hands of a *very* few--these factors can play to the negative side of a religion.

Dear Bishop Wright

I think the question could have been forumated more precisely by asking "Do the tenets of Islam propogate violence? Did the founder of Islam propogate or practice violence in his lifetime? Is there any room for the followers of Islam to practice violence based on the teachings of Islam and the life of their prophet, whom they look up to as a role model?"

These questions are relevant in the aftermath of 9/11 and terrorism in the name of Allah and Islam. So it is a good opportunity for Muslims to explain their Scripture, the context of violence in the life of their prophet, and the use of violence in his lifetime and since.

No matter what Christians may have done over the centuries, one thing we do know for certain is that Christ did not TEACH or preach violence. There was nothing in the life of Jesus Christ that set an example for political Christianity (turning the other cheek cannot defend the borders of a country or protect the innocent from criminals) or the use of violence in any form.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Yes, Steve. You are, of course, correct. I just interpreted what Kelly was saying in a different light; namely, as trying to distinguish between the true word of God, as opposed to the corrupted man-made word.

If the distinction is between spirituality and religion, however, then fair enough! Spirituality is definitely a good thing, and it describes a way of life embraced even by many atheists.

Mavaddat:
The truth about the nature of divinity may be beyond us, but what is clear is that a politician seeing religion only as a useful form of population control will never, ever get it right. So Kelly is right in her first sentence: the problem is usually "organised religion" and not spirituality or faith.

The problem is, both Christianity and Islam in the current forms were only ever state-sponsored organised monotheisms, and as such have the violence and flaws built-in. Faith in the Unknowable Divine would be great, it's when politicians choose a version to spread that violence is inevitable.

Kelly,

I take your prescribed division between faith and religion to be a kind of ellipsis for a distinction between "true" religion and the man made religion.

If that is the important distinction, I'd like you to show me why your understanding of the "true" nature of God is any truer than those who say that God does indeed--not only bless their war--but positively sanctions and encourages them to the killing fields.

Let us bring God to account and investigate its true nature. If it turns out, however, that your account of God's true nature is as much an arbitrarily exaltation of your own ideals to the status of divinity as those who say that God sanctions violence (as I suspect will be the case), then I think your suggested distinction is really quite illusory.

There is no "true" religion of God, just as there is no "true" nature of God, just as there is no "true" Islam. There is only what humans invent and then ascribe as the intention of a very powerful, invisible being that sits on the edges of the universe. It is all man made and imaginary. This is evident from the fact that there is no investigation that we could do, even in principle, to determine whose understanding of God is the more correct or truer one.

I think everyone needs to realize that there is a big difference between faith and religion. Religion is man's organization set up to control his fellow man by bastardizing God's word. For there are few religions out there that actually follow word for word what is translated in the bible, and few again who understand its meaning. And unfortunately there are some bad translations. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) To ask God to bless a war is blasphemous. And if you think that the world of Christendom is not violent to this day you are certainly naive.

Bishops and theologians love to complicate things.

Simplicity is a cosmic virtue.

The answer to the question is:

"Yes, Islam is a violent religion, exactly as Christianity once was."