|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2010 16:13:13 GMT -8
A tricky, controversial subject. Anyone want to take a stab at it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2010 18:37:23 GMT -8
Okay. I'll take a stance and then someone can challenge it and we can discuss.
I do believe, as far as I've studied, that Islam is the most militaristic of the major world religions. Does that make it a "violent" religion. Not necessarily.
However, it has been a religion spread by the sword from its inception. While it is true that the Koran teaches that there should be no compulsion in religion (forced conversions), Islam from its beginning eagerly set out to conquer and subdue its enemies and establish a growing theocracy- with world domination as its ultimate goal. The Koran does not envision separation of Church and State and this has historically fueled the agressive aspect of Islam.
Modern Muslims who would like to tone down these aspects of their faith are doing so against the natural grain of their own sacred text and history.
Still, many of the tactics resorted to today by Muslim terrorists would have been shunned by earlier Muslims. Mohammed did encourage Muslims to envision fighting and dying for the faith as one of the most noble expressions of submission to Allah, but not the suicidal actions of modern terrorists.
As opposed to Buddhism and Christianity particularly, Islam is more akin to ancient Israel in it's understanding of the use of force and it's methods of expansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2010 18:54:40 GMT -8
BTW, I'd love to hear from mainstream Muslims on this subject.
My only personal conversations on this subject have been with Black Muslims.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Sept 15, 2010 15:41:53 GMT -8
This may be a lame response to this thread, but, here goes:
Humanity is a violent race.
You could do a tally throughout history of what religion was responsible for what particular violent act, and it could be that Islam would end up with more marks, but Christianity and Judaism would have quite a few as well.
True, but the Torah does not envision the separation either. The New Testament has "Render unto Caeser" and Romans 13, but does not specifically address separation. In fact, "Kingdom" is a motif well used.
However, violent acts do not always represent a religion as a whole, but rather individuals. And this is hard to quantify: If I am a Christian, and I follow orders to press a button, and start a nuclear war that kills millions and millions, does that make Christianity a violent religion? If I am Muslim and use force to spread my wordly wealth (empire) for strategic reasons, and of course enforce my culture on those who I conquer, does it matter what religion I am? What I am getting at is that violence is a human condition, not necessarily one particular religion.
In regard to the religions we think of as "non-violent", are they non-violent because their religions forbid violence, or because they are practiced by cultures that are not as interested in empire building?
I almost want to say that it comes down to political philosophy (which certainly could be influenced by religion) and not religion in and of itself that makes cultures violent.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 16, 2010 7:39:35 GMT -8
Good point, Kirby. Much agreement here. Modern Muslims who would like to tone down these aspects of their faith are doing so against the natural grain of their own sacred text and history. Josh, I find this statement interesting (and problematic) because it sounds as if you knew the Koran well enough to make absolute statements about its content. If I’m not mistaken, you don’t. Do you even speak Arab? The thing is: When I wrote my master- thesis about the image of Islam in social networks, I got to read a lot of Muslim input and it reminded me a lot of our own conversations. Muslim apologetics use the same argumentative pattern as you do and they make the same accusations when pointing out the flaws of other religions as you just did. One of the main arguments is that the Koran is being mistranslated and that undeniably existing atrocities can rather be traced back to (false) cultural interpretative traditions than to scripture. One Muslim I interviewed pointed out to me, that the Koran allows no violence besides self-defense (he was almost as good in dropping scripture bombs as you  ). He said Djihad doesn’t mean real war but the inner struggle against one’s own inequities (kind of like you in our unfinished discussion about "the enemy"). It goes as far as literally translating “Islam” with “peace”*. They argue that words have multiple meanings and that the correct translation puts everything into a different light (like you for example in Genesis). You do the same. And you don’t want outsiders like me with limited knowledge of your holy texts make total statements about the true nature of your religion. And you don’t want me to draw conclusions from the misbehavior of crusaders, or the Roman Church, or Northern Irish Christians, or North American slaveholders, or … etc. about the nature of Christianity, do you? So what’s the double standard for? Every religion makes a total truth claim, hence every religion houses the potential of violence. It depends on how the individual believer interprets what he holds to be the truth. In that sense, Islam is as violent or peaceful as Christianity. Now you’ll probably ask what we can tell from an academically responsible analysis and then we will have to analyze the historical originals in the original language and context and debate every single possible interpretation. Since we can’t do this, we will have to content ourselves with a less academic perspective and from there it seems to me that both Islam and Christianity are full of abhorrent legitimizations of violence as well as contradicting sublime messages of peace and love. And if you allow me one last heretical comment for today: it doesn't matter which of these two religions is more or less loving or violent. They are both wrong.  *Apparently there are now [edit: I mean "no", not "now"] vowels in the Arab language. So the word Islam consists of the letters s-l-m, like “salam” which means peace. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 17, 2010 17:10:47 GMT -8
But this is just what I was arguing when I said:
Still, many of the tactics resorted to today by Muslim terrorists would have been shunned by earlier Muslims. Mohammed did encourage Muslims to envision fighting and dying for the faith as one of the most noble expressions of submission to Allah, but not the suicidal actions of modern terrorists.
Yes, the initial military victories of the Muslims under Mohammed are said by them to have been "self-defense" (open for debate). Yet the fact remains that within 30 years Islam had forceably spread throughout all of the middle east and far beyond over the next 100 years without so much as a second thought.
It doesn't so much matter to me whether these conquests were justified or not (in their eyes, in light of the Koran, or even by modern standards) The main thing to me is the contrast between Jesus' message of non-violence, which the church followed well for more than 300 years, and Mohammed's message of "violence* is your duty under ___________ circumstances" and will be one vehicle Allah uses to spread our faith. Both religions have a history of associations with violent atrocities, but they have very different philosophical foundations when it comes to violence.
Jihad means struggle, and, as such can refer to "spiritual warfare", but certainly not exclusively in the Koran and early Muslim history, where it also sometimes clearly refers to physical warfare ( as well as debate). Are you aware of any Muslim scholar who believes it is always and only used in the sense of "spiritual warfare"? Because I'm not.
*again, justified or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 17, 2010 17:16:24 GMT -8
It's fine for you to make statements just as it is fine, and helpful, for me or any Muslim to add to your knowledge.
Pay closer attention to my thesis. It's not a double standard. The idea is this: there is no connection between the teachings of Jesus and those later actions of Christians, whereas there is a connection between the teachings and outlook of Muhammed and the Qu'ran (that war is in at least some circumstances a Muslim duty) and the later actions of Muslims.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 18, 2010 8:37:27 GMT -8
First off, which elements of my "statement" do you think are "absolute" and yet controversial? The part with the "true nature" of Qu'ran. The true nature of any religion is in the eye of the beholder or more concrete: in the individual understanding. As much as we (especially I) would like to nail down scripture passages, language in general and Scripture language in particular is way too slippery to allow this. There is always an alternative way to interpret anything. You are doing it all the time.  Secondly, although there are certainly subtleties embedded in the original Arabic that one would benefit from taking into account on this topic, history and Muslim translations of the Koran provide plenty of relevant and accessible data. But you are aware that there are as many Qu'ran translations as there are Bible translations and that every translation is actually an interpretation and that interpretations can make a world of a difference, right? The Qu'rans I used for my master thesis contained a letter of the university of Kairo, Egypt, saying that this was an authorized translation and yet no valid substitute for the original. The Qu'ran, they went on to say, can only be understood in Arab. (And even in Arab there is still enough margin for diametrically opposed interpretations). But this is just what I was arguing when I said: Still, many of the tactics resorted to today by Muslim terrorists would have been shunned by earlier Muslims. Mohammed did encourage Muslims to envision fighting and dying for the faith as one of the most noble expressions of submission to Allah, but not the suicidal actions of modern terrorists.I had no beef with this paragraph, that's why I didn't adress it. Yes, the initial military victories of the Muslims under Mohammed are said by them to have been "self-defense" (open for debate). Yet the fact remains that within 30 years Islam had forceably spread throughout all of the middle east and far beyond over the next 100 years without so much as a second thought. This is where you're starting to mix things up. Now we are speaking about the actions of Muslims. The Bible has also been spread by the sword, do you deny this? The main thing to me is the contrast between Jesus' message of non-violence, which the church followed well for more than 300 years, and Mohammed's message of "violence* is your duty under ___________ circumstances" and will be one vehicle Allah uses to spread our faith. Both religions have a history of associations with violent atrocities, but they have very different philosophical foundations when it comes to violence. Well, I have to say that I personally agree with you about this, but for the point I'm making it doesn't matter. You know that Christians keep justifying to the present day all kinds of wars and the good old "ends justify means" rationale despite Jesus' message of non violence. I might agree that they are doing so against the true nature of Jesus' teaching but they do find ways of getting around it and they will certainly disagree with pacifists who claim Jesus' teachings were strictly non-violent. If I remember correctly, you weren't even decided on this... Jihad means struggle, and, as such can refer to "spiritual warfare", but certainly not exclusively in the Koran and early Muslim history, where it also sometimes clearly refers to physical warfare ( as well as debate).Are you aware of any Muslim scholar who believes it is always and only used in the sense of "spiritual warfare"? Because I'm not. I know scholars that state that any aggression in the name of Jihad is strictly forbidden. What is allowed though, as far as I know is self-defense. And how is self-defense defined? According to American presidents preventive wars are self-defense... |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2010 16:55:51 GMT -8
First off- I didn't use the words "true nature". I made some very modest points about things in the Q'uran that are almost universally understood.
We keep bumping up against this. There is NOT ALWAYS an alternative way to interpret EVERYTHING. The reality is this: some passages are more ambiguous than others and therefor leave more (or less) room for variable interpretations. A good way for you to see what I mean would be to gather 10 translations of the Bible (or the Qu'ran) and read them side by side. You'll see that they agree 95%* of the time because most passages are not very ambiguous.
Perhaps the problem here is that you see Muslims and Christians debating theological concepts rather than single passages. Concepts that are gleaned from an entire corpus of Scripture are certainly more open to shades of gray. But not all of them.
Yes, I'm aware that the Qu'ran is supposed to be only infallible and best understood in Arabic. But nonetheless Mulsims believe that translations are helpful in gaining an working understanding of the texts.
My point is that the Qu'ran sanctions the spreading of the Muslim faith by the sword** whereas the New Testament doesn't.
Yes, this is the problem. This seems to be how Muslims have always defined it as well.
However, I believe that Augustine and Luther's views on just war did not allow for preventative offensive warfare. But I suppose that's for the "just war" thread.
*obviously I don't know the exact percent.
** not to be confused with forced conversions. Although forced conversions are disallowed in Islam, Muslims from Mohammed on have been zealous to conquer their enemies and make their faith the dominant religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 29, 2010 2:56:36 GMT -8
Josh, my point is this: you are asking whether Islam is a violent religion and all I’m saying is that a universally correct answer is impossible because the only one who can interpret God’s will with certainty is God himself. Everything else is de facto human interpretation whether you like it or not (by the way, have you ever answered to my elaboration of the individual construction of reality, some months ago?). We just have to look at the “social reality”: there are violent Muslims who legitimate their violence with their holy book and there are Muslims who factually reject violence. If you say that Muslims, who “tone down these [aggressive] aspects of their faith are doing so against the natural grain of their own sacred text”* I dare you to find one of them and debate him here. Because I’ve done this and I have received scripture bombs and lessons about false translations ect. to which I, as a layman, had nothing to reply. Apart from that, I’m not interested in defending Islam, so let a Muslim do it. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from our discourse over the past seven years, it’s that we have to be careful with quick conclusions when dealing with someone else’s worldview. moritz wrote: "And how is self-defense defined? According to American presidents preventive wars are self-defense..." Yes, this is the problem. This seems to be how Muslims have always defined it as well. However, I believe that Augustine and Luther's views on just war did not allow for preventative offensive warfare. But I suppose that's for the "just war" thread. I take this as a concession that a) the keypart of Islam’s stance on violence is open for subjective interpretation and b) the peacefulness of Christianity is likewise contestable. I think I’ve said all there is to say by now. Unless you have further need for discussion, you get the last word. *Which implies that you know the “natural grain of their sacred texts” well enough to make absolute statements about it. PS: one last semantic question: what's the difference between "the natural grain" and the "true nature"? Me be stupid foreigner...  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 2, 2010 10:08:21 GMT -8
I'm not sure. If you can locate it, I'll check. I would love it. You want to suggest someone? I don't know any Muslims personally (I'm sure you have the opportunity to know many more than I do); though my position is partly formed by conversations I have had with some Muslims- including a Sunni who visited our Bible Study once. And I'm not claiming I can't be wrong. I believe my opinion is supported but it's not intrinsically immune to challenge. Note I started the thread saying it was a "tricky" "controversial" subject, but I was willing to fire from the hip with my current understanding in order to get a conversation going. And it worked They are roughly equivalent except that "natural grain" is a reference to woodworking, in which there is a natural trajectory of the grain of wood so that if you try to sand it against the grain you will damage the wood. True nature just means bascially "purest essence". |
|
). He said Djihad doesn’t mean real war but the inner struggle against one’s own inequities (kind of like you in our unfinished discussion about "the enemy"). It goes as far as literally translating “Islam” with “peace”*. They argue that words have multiple meanings and that the correct translation puts everything into a different light (like you for example in Genesis). 
