When Muslims say Islam is the religion of peace, what kind of peace are they referring to?

[snagglepuss]

I have come to the conclusion that it is not peace in terms of no-violence and absence of war but peace of mind, freedom of anxiety. I could be wrong but this way of understanding the peace they refer to would explain why Mohamed had no qualms about slaying as enemies. The peace that is being offered by Islam is the peace of mind that comes with complete submission, complete acceptance. I can see how this approach to life would be like Prozac and anyone or anything threatening the continuance of that blissful state would be viewed negatively if not with extreme hostility.

[Niceguy1]

1. interesting

[truebluegreen]

2. Is this thread locked yet?

[longship]

31. Ah! But this IS the Religion forum.

We discuss religion here with all its (and our own) warts.

[truebluegreen]

32. Ah. I missed that. Should pay more attention.

That said, I think darn near every religion is a Religion of Peace. There are a few exceptions, which are more about self-knowledge.

[SheilaT]

3. Well, Christians claim also to have a religion of peace.

Jesus is often called the Prince of Peace, and lots of murders have been committed in his name.

[Moonwalk]

17. It's not a matter of people who are followers of a religion committing murders...

...at least, that is what I gather from the OP. Rather, it is a matter of whether the religion itself condones murder. I would say, for example, that the Old Testament and religions based on it have no problem with murder. Witness the slaughter of the Canaanites at god's command--and for no other reason than to give the land they occupied to the Hebrews. That's unarmed men, woman and children murdered in their homes by armed men; this as opposed to the Egyptians who were killed by god for trying to slaughter unarmed Hebrews (act of god is not "murder&quot .

Likewise, the Old Testament has no trouble prescribing "death" for those who follow it's religion, yet go against certain laws, some of which we would hardly consider requiring such a dire punishment. So, I think we can say that this is not a peaceful religion.

Christianity, OTOH, might argue that is it a religion of peace if Jesus doesn't command any kind of violence or death even for his own followers, let alone his enemies. If the New Testament urges non-violence as a response in all or most situations--and if, arguably, New Testament rules always trump Old Testament in regards to the religion (note: this doesn't mean that its followers are non-violent).

So the question is, does Mohammad/Islam argue against violent punishment for certain, non-violent crimes in the religion, or committing violence against those who are enemies, whether actively so (taking up arms against you) or not? If the religion is all for taking up arms, doing violence to other, including those who've done nothing to you, then it is not a religion of peace.

That is not the same, however, as (1) the religion being a religion of violence (glorifying it and urging everyone to engage in it, nor (2) those who follow the religion being violent people. The religion in the abstract doesn't equal the acts of the religious in the real world. Something the OP might have missed?

[GoneFishin]

29. +1000. That's an understatement.

[hrmjustin]

4. All I can say is I know many Muslims here in Brooklyn and they are good people.

There are people who take things to an extreme in all belief systems.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. Not all belief systems are equal though, some practice some type of exclusivity...

that can lead to violence. I'd be hard pressed to think that extremist humanists, for example, would be anything but some of the nicest people on the planet. The only ones who could be nicer, maybe, are extremist Jains, that seems like a mildly amusing musing.

[hrmjustin]

6. It seems logical but people are capable of doing horrible things.

No matter what their beliefs.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. The question is what motivates such actions...

I mean, many people do things despite their personal beliefs, I mean we all compromise on some level to get through life. Some more than others. Most of the time, when its against their personal beliefs, we rationalize it away, for example, a humanist who robs a store will rationalize that he needs the money, and is only intending to scare some people temporarily, so he rationalizes that its an acceptable bending of the rules for his ethics. Other humanists would obviously disagree.

Of course, many people don't really think such things through until after the fact, most crimes are like that, and people try to rationalize or justify it within their belief system. That's far different, though, from doing something horrible because you are motivated to because of your beliefs.

[hrmjustin]

14. You make some good points.

[skepticscott]

10. Sure they are, but it would be blatantly false

to claim that every belief system is equally likely to promote extremism, especially violent, murderous extremism, committed directly because of and in furtherance of that belief system.

You're not claiming that, I hope.

[hrmjustin]

13. All I said was that every group has extremists. I made no claim on who has more or less.

[skepticscott]

15. Do you acknowledge or deny

That Islam is more likely to lead people to violent, murderous extremism than Unitarian Universalism, or Presbyterianism?

[hrmjustin]

18. I will admit Islam has too many extremists willing to do harm to others.

I know because I lost friends in tower one. History has shown that religion has been used to excuse violence since religion existed.

IMO Islam needs to go through a reformation. Christianity could use another as well.

[skepticscott]

21. Since you've now acknowledging that some belief systems

are far more likely to lead to violent, murderous extremism than others, I'd say you've come around.

Thinking that because no religion is 100% composed of violent extremists, every religion is equally likely to foster them, is unsupportable. I'm glad to see that you've avoided that pitfall. Similar notions are all too common on this board, as I expect you're aware.

[hrmjustin]

22. Well I will admit that from the reality of history and current events Islam and Christianity have

produced a large amount of extremists. That is just clear from current events and history.

UU members and Secular humanists are less likely to have have extremists.

The reality wishing away extremism will not make it go away. We need to address the issue and we don't really do that.

[skepticscott]

23. Who is this "we" you're referring to?

Certainly not any of the prominent posters on this board who have a fit whenever anti-theists level criticism at the extremists in many religious traditions (because extremists are the ones who cause the problems...duh), and say that we should stop paying so much attention to that (very significant) aspect of religion. I suggest you point out to THEM that they need to join those of us already speaking and acting against dangerous religion extremism, instead of trying to gloss over it, and pretending that religion is mostly sweetness and light.

[hrmjustin]

24. By we I mean my fellow believers.

[skepticscott]

25. I'd say you have your work cut out for you, then

But purging this board of attempts to stifle the criticism of religious extremism would be an excellent start, if you're really serious.

[hrmjustin]

26. That you have to talk to skinner, but I agree that extremism needs to be discussed here.

[skepticscott]

34. It is discussed here..and criticized

but some here attempt to stifle that criticism. You don't need Skinner to find the will to be on the right side of that discussion, and to speak out against those on the wrong side.

[hrmjustin]

35. Yes we can speak our minds here.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Its the nature of the beliefs and the actions the extremists take that matter, isn't that right?

I mean, take extremist humanists, who are uncompromising in...treating all humans fairly and with compassion. So they are extremists, but...that's not really a bad thing, is it?

[hrmjustin]

20. There is nothing extremist in that but if one were to commit violence in the name of

secular humanism then we would call he/she an extremist.

[kestrel91316]

61. My niece married into a family of Jains from India, and they are just plain nice

people, none of them visibly religious, though the wedding ceremony and parties did have a nice, fairly secular blending of Anglo and Indian traditions. I don't know that there is such a thing as a Jain "extremist", lol. They are vegetarian, but not militant, and the Golden Rule is about the only doctrine they adhere to.

[skepticscott]

7. An argument limited to your own

anecdotal experience is no argument at all. Even to the extent that you actually "know" these people.

And even if you're cherry-picking on "extremists", how many Unitarian Universalists have flown planes into buildings...in your personal experience?

[hrmjustin]

9. Point taken. But I think most Muslims are peaceful people. This is just my thoughts.

I like to believe that most people are peaceful no matter what they believe.

[pangaia]

11. To turn it around a bit..

Maybe they are Unitarians because they DON'T fly planes into buildings.

[skepticscott]

12. Well, if you can find any Unitarians who will say

"I became a Unitarian because I had no desire to fly planes into buildings", do let us know.

[muxin]

39. so we can't do cherry-picking on "extremists"

are you saying we just use a broad brush? If you say those "extremists" really represent Islam, then maybe I can say Stalin really represent Atheism?

Extremism can be found anywhere, in any religion, in many forms. Perhaps there are people in Unitarian Universalists that have extreme views but they just don't see any urgency to do anything. There are many things happened in muslim world in the past few decades that triggered such act, the Israel-Palestine problem for example and many more, so comparing the "extremism" between muslim and Unitarian Universalists is not really fair IMO unless both experience somewhat the same thing. Have you heard about the "holly war" led by Buddhist monks in Myanmar? they have killed lots of people including small children, so I guess we should say that these represent Buddhism? well.. then again according to your logic maybe these are not "extremism", after all they haven't flown any plane into buildings.. yet

[skepticscott]

41. You shouldn't jump into a conversation you don't understand

and presume that you know me or my "logic".

Of course extremists and the religions that are more likely to create them can be singled out for special criticism, but since they're not being selected for no other reason than to support an already decided conclusion, that hardly qualifies as cherry-picking, now does it?

And if you can think of anything at all that would motivate Unitarian Universalists to bomb abortion clinics, beat gay men to death, or destroy buildings full of thousands of people in furtherance of their "faith", please share with us.

[muxin]

48. Have you ever think of becoming a white supremacist after studying Darwinism?

Probably not, but others do

When people like you and me looking at the Unitarian Universalists teachings maybe we couldn't find any motivation for the followers to do violent acts, but a hot headed idiot might interpret the teaching in a whole different way, event violent.

Same as Islam, I couldn't find any part of the teaching that motivates anyone to brutally kill lots of innocent people, but some radical idiots just don't see it that way.

[skepticscott]

51. It's not hard to find aspects of the teaching of Islam

that motivate its adherents to violence, or threats of violence. All you have to do is read and listen to what the people involved say. That you claim not to be aware of any, or that the only ones that matter are those that motive the killing of "lots of innocent people", I can only put down to your being deliberately evasive or obtuse.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any aspects at all of UU that would so motivate even your theoretical "hot-headed idiot".

[muxin]

70. All you have to do is read and listen to what the people involved say

Yeah.. you go ahead and let other people do the thinking for you, just like I thought, you and the OP just draw a conclusion from the news, that's silly. I can say the same about Darwinism, so all I have to do is read and listen what the people involved in white supremacists movement to judge this theory? I don't think so.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any aspects at all of UU that would so motivate even your theoretical "hot-headed idiot"

I don't have to, I already said likely I won't find anything, who knows what the radical idiots would find.. I can't think like them, I assume you're smart enough to see my point.

[skepticscott]

72. Being a white supremacist does not qualify one

to opine intelligently on evolutionary biology, and nowhere does evolutionary biology or "Darwinism" tell people how to behave or what to do or not to do. Nowhere in the tenets of evolutionary biology does it say "anyone who insults this theory must die" or "anyone who was an evolutionist but becomes a creationist must be put to death".

Being a Muslim DOES qualify one to opine on Islam, and Islam (among other religions) DOES tell people how to behave and what to do or not to do.

I assume you're smart enough to see that your analogy is crap.

[cbayer]

16. Assuming you are asking this question seriously, I did a little research.

Well, I read a wiki entry, lol.

The term apparently first came into use after 9/11 in an attempt to distinguish Muslim terrorists from regular Muslims, the vast majority of whom are clearly not terrorists. It was also meant to counter the meme that Islam was, at it's root, a violent religion.

This hasn't gone all that well and has been used sarcastically and turned against Muslims in many cases. Your OP might be an example of that.

[Leontius]

27. The truth is that the people who fueled Islam's expansion were a violent people.

Was the root cause of this violence the tenets of the religion or the culture of Arabia?

[cbayer]

44. What do you think?

[Igel]

28. Indeed, it's of recent coinage.

However, there's also the oddball claim that "Islam" means "peace." Instead it means submission in a kind of hierarchy: people to god--the highest form--but then the submission works up from below, with wives submitting to husbands, children to parents, People of the Book to Muslims. This works its way in small examples that fly under Western radars, largely because we really don't want our radar screen cluttered when we have bigger, more personally involved issues.

The pre-existing order was chaos. Islam, submission, disposes of chaos and imposes order.

This view of "peace" isn't coexistence. In tribal and clannish societies where public honor is paramount and is accompanied by public submission, it never can be, unless everybody is equally submissive to a higher order that is very demanding.

Said probably would have advanced the claim that the "religion of peace" phrase is intentionally "foreignizing" so as to encode marginalization in the claim of acceptance and thereby undermine the claim in its assertion. You've got to take that with an extra large helping of advanced motivated reasoning, which is much of what dear Edward engaged in anyway.

[GoneFishin]

30. Subtle.

[longship]

33. We're into this in another thread.

I confess to being the person who posted the first provocative entry.

I think it was important to do that because there are many very smart people in the Religion group here. And almost without exception the people here try to disagree respectfully. It's what makes this group a fun and intellectual place to spend some time.

I am tempted to post an OP here that just asks one question.

What about Islam?

Just to read the responses. It probably won't bring on the type of discussion I intend. But if the question was framed properly it might be a productive thread.

[rug]

36. If you want a knowledgeable answer, post the question here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1224

[struggle4progress]

37. The Muslims I've met have often been great people, and one of the finest bits of theological

disputation I ever heard came from a Muslim child:

Why do we call God "He"? she asked her mother. Her mother thought about that a bit and then said, well, she thought maybe it was to convey the idea that God was wise and powerful. That's funny, said the child. I've always thought God was a little girl

[muxin]

38. And how exactly did you reach that conclusion?

From everything you read/saw in the news? Too bad then that the millions of other peaceful muslim hardly ever been covered in the news, maybe they're not interesting enough for news material, cause you know a bearded maniac with a turban and AK47 is far more interesting to discuss. I live in a muslim majority country and in my neighborhood there are only 3 christian families, and guess what.. they're still alive!! how amazing is that!! usually when I say these things the respond I get from some members here are "well.. those people are cherry picking" or something like "they just don't apply the violent teaching of the religion". Actually no, we follow all the teachings, we just have different understanding/interpretation of the teachings with those maniacs. Then usually I get a respond like "that means there's room for misinterpretation within the teaching", I'd say yes, the same goes for any other philosophy, lots of racist pricks became white supremacists because they're inspired by Darwin's theory.

Another thing:

Mohamed had no qualms about slaying as enemies

What's your sources? no qualms? that's a difficult thing to prove/confirm historically. Anyway, if you're referring to the wars during Prophet Muhammad's time, all of them happened when he lived in Medina, and if you search for a war map you'll see that most of the biggest wars at that time happened close to Medina, it shows that the muslims were in a defensive position. The muslim gained victory when they returned to Mecca in the year 630, two years after that in 632 the prophet died, so there's not even a territorial expansion being done in his lifetime.

[GoneFishin]

40. I am guessing from FOX news.

I've noticed that FOX news tends to target other cultures by filming them in the middle of some cultural ritual that american viewers might find odd or barbaric. The more unfamiliar the clothing and attire the better. Throw in some unfamiliar native chanting or yells, and you are almost done.

Next, have one of the FOX nitwits voice-over some anachronistic quote from some religious text out of context, and misinterpret it for it's low information viewers, weaving in some cultural stereo-typing if possible.

Finally, run it on endless loop.

Voila. Everything they need to dehumanize and sow prejudice against another culture.

This could be used to smear any religion or culture. But they have their favorites.

[skepticscott]

42. The history of Islam is hardly confined to Mohammed's lifetime

and throughout just about all of it, right up until the present day, Muslims and the nations they constituted have been more than eager to engage in wars of political and religious conquest.

So the OP's question remains, exactly what type of "peace" is it that Islam as a religion practices? As opposed to the peace that a religion like Jainism practices? Compare the two, why don't you?

[rug]

43. "Muslims . . . have been more than eager to engage in wars of political and religious conquest."

Wars are waged by nations. Conflating the two is what leads to bigotry.

[skepticscott]

45. And the soldiers fighting those wars

have been Muslims. How many have been Jains? How many of the soldiers in America's "Christian" army have been Amish? The adherents of true "religions of peace" refuse to kill, even in a "necessary" or "just" war.

So the question still remains..what type of "peace" does Islam as a religion really practice?

[rug]

47. I'll leave out Pat Tillman for the moment but the point stands.

Wars are intitiated and carried out by national governments, enlisting its citizens to fight them.

To equate that with a particular religious belief, and to assert that those citizens are fighting those wars due to their religious beliefs, is a bigoted statement, not to mention stupid.

[skepticscott]

49. If I had said any of that, your post might have some point

But since I didn't, and since my post clearly went over your head, I'll ignore your predictable attempts to label me as bigoted and stupid.

[rug]

50. I'll just leave your own words out here then.

"Muslims . . . have been more than eager to engage in wars of political and religious conquest."

[skepticscott]

53. Since you obviously need it explained

The point is that their religious belief did not compel them to avoid fighting wars and killing others, as the religious beliefs of others have. The waging of wars, of whatever political and religious motivation, in no way conflicts with the teachings of Islam.

So the OP question still stands (predictably unaddressed in any intelligent way by you or the other wafflers here): What kind of "peace" does the religion of Islam practice? When someone says that Islam is a "religion of peace", what does that really mean?

[rug]

54. Uh-huh.

But to answer your question, I've always considered the phrase to be rooted in islam, submission, as in peaceful submission to the will of Allah, not unlike the state of nirvana, "the extinguishing of fire", or the Christian "thy will be done".

I do think, though, you'd get a more accurate answer in the Islam group if you are indeed seeking an answer.

[skepticscott]

59. You just can't resist content-free snark, can you?

Well, keep it up if you think it adds to the discussion.

And it was the OP's question, not mine, as I pointed out on multiple occasions. I simply pointed out that it had not been addressed in any meaningful way. And your response makes it clear that you think saying that Islam is a "religion of peace" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is fundamentally opposed to war and violence in furtherance of faith.

[rug]

60. Hello, kettle.

Posted your question there yet?

[Leontius]

62. The period of Moslem expansion was fueled by a violent nomadic culture further inflamed by

a religious text that was used to inspire the armies to complete the 'submission' of the surrounding cultures to the true faith of and will of Allah. The fact that an acceptable form of 'submission' was to bow down to the conquerors and allow them to take their economic reward in return for subservience and or conversion was a political expedient that the leaders of the expansion realized would allow them to dominate the region and large population in relation to the small numbers of their armies. The 'peaceful face' of Islam would not emerge for a couple of centuries as the East and West both were able to begin to defend themselves and turn to the reconquest of some territories and the stabilization of other frontier areas.

[rug]

64. Submission to anyone but Al-lah would be idolatry.

What you describe is a veneer.

Further, islamic submission is not achieved by conquest. It is a voluntary, joyful submission.

[Leontius]

67. What I describe is history.

The first two hundred years of Moslem expansion was as joyful and voluntary for the people living there as the Saxon conversion to Christianity, even if less bloody .

[rug]

68. History is neither theology nor religion.

If you really want to describe the factors that went into the conquest you can't stop at religion.

[muxin]

55. The OP is questioning the Islamic teaching

A teaching introduced by Muhammad, so if you want to see Islam in its purest practice we should see it during the prophet's lifetime, when Islam still have 1 interpretation, there's no sunni, shia, wahabi, salafi, etc. You can't judge a religion, a philosophy, a believe system, a theory, or whatever it is by the action of some of its followers, that's so naive. Turn off your TV and study the teaching from its sources, which I believe you never did.

exactly what type of "peace" is it that Islam as a religion practices?

For me, a real peace like I'm practicing right now

Muslims and the nations they constituted have been more than eager to engage in wars of political and religious conquest

LOL.. don't tell me you don't know which country have engaged in most wars in the past decades, you're living in it. If I think like you I would probably think that the USA has the most evil constitution in the world.

[skepticscott]

73. This is completely over your head, isn't it?

The point, since you seem to need it explained, is that Islam being a "religion of peace" means absolutely nothing with regard to its adherents eschewing war and violence, as the adherents of some religions actually do. When people say that the violence engaged in by so many Muslims is not in concert with the beliefs of Islam because Islam is a "religion of peace", that's just meaningless pap.

And I don't watch TV, btw..since you seem obsessed with that and determined to make some bullshit point from it. Try again.

[rug]

74. He's from Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country.

I think you're over your head.

[M Kitt]

46. This "Piece" reeks, yet another troll product, posted with intent to pi$$ off we Liberals

Christianity is chock full of Sanctimonious hypocrites, Muslims engage in that foolishness too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123015084

Which only makes sense, since they're both derived from the same "Old Testament" nonsense.

[PDJane]

52. In the same way that, say, Christianity or Judaism have different sects with varying degrees

of tolerance, so does Islam. There are muslims who don't wear headscarves or religious gear, there are muslims who wear a headscarf with normal clothing, there are muslims who wear the burqua or the chador, with men wearing loose pants and a tunic. The fanatics are generally called 'islamists' and, like jews who wear full beards, high scullcaps and chase women and girls who don't cover themselves fully, they are concerned with making not just their co-religionists but everyone obey their rules.

This is the problem with monotheistic religions; the varying degrees of control they exert always include "Thou shalt have no other God before me."

Islam is a relatively new religion; the fanatics are more fanatic than most.

[Loudly]

56. Mormonism is even newer.

But those folks rely on charm and earnestness to try and convert others.

[PDJane]

57. Yeah, wait. Historically, it comes to violence sooner or later.

Right now, the violence is all against their own.

[kestrel91316]

63. They started out extremely violent, at least behind the scenes.

Joe Smith and Brigham Young were fond of stealing other men's wives and then having them killed when they protested.

They rewarded my g-g-g-grandfather handsomely for doing that for them.

[dkf]

58. Is any religion one of peace? I would say that is just PR if anything.

Religions are more than a slogan. They can't be cut down to one phrase.

[dimbear]

65. There have been some, but they tend to be exterminated by religions that aren't so particular.

Supernatural selection.

[dkf]

66. Well I guess the odds you will be exterminated are much higher if you refuse to fight back.

[MellowDem]

69. Any religion that believes nonbelievers will be punished eternally

is not a religion of peace. Any religion whose god kills innocent people just because they don't believe is not a religion of peace. A religion of peace cannot have a tyrannical genocidal god.

[Humanist_Activist]

71. Oddly enough, in Islam, from my understanding, Hell isn't eternal, its a place...

people go to be purged of their sins before they go to heaven, a painful process, but more like Catholic Purgatory than Christian Hell, which is eternal.

[MellowDem]

75. Still seems completely unjust, but better than being eternal...

I think I like the Mormon version even better. At least as one Mormon friend told me, people don't really go to hell, you just get put into a tiered caste system in heaven. Basically, you don't get to run your own planet like the Mormons will, but still, no eternal punishment.

[bravenak]

76. Doesn't this apply to most religions.

I think it does.