In the wake of the terrorist attacks, the politically correct thing to say is that “Islam is not a violent religion… it is just an extremist sect that does not represent the beliefs of Islam, yadda yadda.” Okay, that sounds nice and happy without offending anyone, but I have a question. This question may be based entirely on untrue stereotypes, so if that’s the case, then please let me know.
It seems a lot of violent prisoners discover Islam while they are in jail and become devout Muslims. Mike Tyson being a perfect example. Sure, prisoners find Jesus too… but I am under the (possibly errant) impression that it is rather commonplace for people incarcerated for violent offenses (rape, murder, etc) to become Muslim. No, I don’t have any stats or cites, nor can I find any. Maybe I have this impression because the media has forced it down my throat. I see it on HBO’s “Oz” series - another good example.
So, my question is the following: Is there something innately violent about Islam? I’ve seen some quotes from the Koran lately that sound quite horrible (of course, as an atheist, I am aware of the fact that there are some really horrible quotes in the Bible as well and the politically correct thing to say is “oh those are just taken out of context.”) and there seems to be this stereotype of violent prisoners discovering Islam and “really liking it.” Can anyone out there forego political correctness and give me an honest, objective summary of why Islam seems to be so violent?
Well, Islam is not a pacifist religion. While it is possible to make an arguement for Christian pacifism based on statements ( perhaps ambiguous, perhaps mistranslated - that’s a matter of debate ) in the Bible, as the Quakers and some other sects do ), it is rather more difficult ( though perhaps not utterly impossible ) to do so for Islam from the Koran. At the very least, the Koran pretty explicitly sanctions defensive violence under certain stringent conditions.
That said, it is not an inherently bloodthirsty religion, either. Islam does not, for example, grant carte blanche to the slaughter of non-Muslims. I think what you are seeing is just a cultural phenomena involving active proselytizing of black prisoners by American Muslim groups with long-established ties to the black community. I rather doubt that most violent white offenders are turning to Islam. Southern Baptist ( or some other actively proselytizing evangelical denomination ), more likely.
Islam may not be pacifist, but in World War II Elijah Muhammad was sent to prison for draft resisting.
In the 1960s Muhammad Ali had his heavyweight title stripped for draft resisting. I think he said something like no Viet Cong ever did anything to him.
These gentlemen must have felt they had a basis for being conscientious objectors, but not being Quakers it didn’t work. Also being Black in a racist system might have had something to do with it.
One of my friends who spent considerable time in prison said that the reason a lot of people converted was dietary. He said that they got better food that way.(he had some interesting stories about bacon with hair and skin still on it…) Course, this could be BS, I don’t know.
Kalt, from my study of Islam, I do not believe that it sanctions violence in any way.
Many, if not all, of the nations which are prevalently Muslim are less-developed than countries such as, for instance, America or Canada. And under-developed countries tend to appear to be less civilised and more prone to violence than developed nations. When the majority of the population is uneducated, they are more easily influenced and thus more easily formed into an “unruly mob”. They don’t have CNN or BBC, so all they know is the propaganda which their corrupt leaders feed them. They don’t have many exciting or interesting ways to occupy their time, so rioting and skirmishing in the streets becomes a more frequent pastime. Think of Europeans several hundred years ago. Without meaning to insult my Muslim brethren… that’s where many of them are now. It does not have anything to do with Islam, just the time and place of its beginnings.
Secondly, regarding American converts to Islam, I do not have much experience regarding this matter, but it seems to me that this has something to do with a basic principle, in Islam, that all people are created equal. The first person who ever gave the call to prayer to the Muslim congregation was Bilal, a black African man. This emphasis on racial equality appeals to many black and/or under-privileged people. For whatever reason, black people tend to be more often incarcerated for violent crimes. Thus one would see Islam appealing more to these people than to, say, a white businessman convicted of embezzlement, or whatever.
The word “Islam” means “peace.” For what that’s worth.
As to the question of prison conversions, I suspect a larger number of people convert to or renew their faith in Christianity while in prison than become Muslim. But until I manage to dig up sone numbers, that’ll have to wait.
More importantly, remember that in the US there’s Islam and then there’s Islam. That is, there is mainstream Islam, the religion of Cat Stevens, and then there are the various sects of Islam which focus on African-Americans. The Nation of Islam, for example, while bearing (IMHO) almost no relation to traditional Islam, is popular among some people as it is extremely pro-black and empowering. It provides a more militant and activist faith than traditional Islam, which many young black men in prison find very appealing.
And sticking with this one example, the Nation of Islam has not traditionally been what I would consider a “peaceful” group.
Pennylane: Well, as I mentioned in that thread Beadalin linked, I think Islam does sanction violence when under threat. While one can certainly say that Islam strives for and honors peace, the notion of the lesser jihad, or militant external struggle ( as opposed to greater jihad or the internal struggle with one’s self ) is one that has seemingly been accepted by most Islamic jurists, in most time periods.
And I don’t think this is a negative thing at all - I believe a community has a right to defend itself against threat. IMHO Islam is pragmatic religion in that way.
What Islam does not allow for is indiscriminate violence. Certainly violence against non-Muslims who do not seek to war on Muslims and violence against non-combatants generally ( women and children ) is abjured. In fact I think you could make a strong argument that even in its militant meaning jihad is defensive in concept ( which hasn’t prevented it from being used in offensive contexts of course ).
Just my $.02 .
Oh, and as regards the Nation of Islam, I agree that it is rather un-Islamic in some respects, but point out that today it is only a splnter group. The vast majority of its former members reconciled with orthodox Islam and changed their practices to bring themselves more in line with the mainstream in the period from 1975 to 1985. They’re now known as the American Muslim Mission. Farrakhan and the current Nation of Islam represents the relative handful of extremists that broke with the main body over these changes.
A rather simplistic statement. In the arabic language context true, but the religious more encompassing definition is* submission* (to allah). That is how peace can be achieved
Islam is one of the most peaceful religions there is, but that very thing makes it a fertile breeding ground for violent zealots. Mainly because the majority won’t condone it, but they won’t rise up against it either.
As opposed to other religions, where if a violent sect erupts, others will react violently against it.
It’s also easy to warp in the west because few people in the west really understand it. We believe what the extremists tell us because they shout the loudest and get the most media attention while the more peaceful people are generally quiet and live to pursue their beliefs rather than preach or defend them.
Thank you, grienspace. I felt that the simplified definition made a stronger point to the OP. You are, of course, correct–inner peace with Allah leads to the outer peace among peoples.
Of course, Tamerlane, you’re right, Islam does permit self-defence and the protection of one’s community. I didn’t consider this “violence” in my reply. Islam does not permit indiscriminate violence, as you pointed out, and in fact Islam does not permit violence in the settlement of personal disputes, nor for the purposes of revenge. In such matters the teachings of Islam are similar to those of Jesus Christ - turn the other cheek.
Much like the Bible the Koran can be used in different ways. Passages can be parsed in harmony or in conflict with one another. Also, there are many translations. Not to mention “Mad Mullahs.”(American tour begins soon, Falwell and Robertson will open, call Ticketmaster)
Sounds good and peaceful, right? Next line…
[emphasis mine] Hmmm, wonder what that means? Just about anything you want it to, if you ask me. I bet the Taliban loves that passage.
What about this…?
I disagree with anyone who thinks that Islam has any clear preference for war or peace. It really depends on how you imagine your own situation. Since OBL has convinced himself that the Holy Land[sup]TM[/sup] is under attack by the Great Satan[sub]TM[/sub] he can justify violence using the Koran.(Qu’ran, Quran, whatever)
Turn the other cheek? Cite please. Tamerlane is on the right track, violence when appropriate is how I would describe the Koranic position. I will end with my favorite…
If you would like to do your own research, here is another place to look. If you can find “Jihad” please let me know. Not a rhetorical question, I have been looking. Also, I would like someone to explain the Islamic position on nonbelievers (“book” v. “non-book” people, etc…). Like there is one “Islamic position,” I know. [Pickthall translation used for all quotes]
I wasn’t disagreeing with Tamerlane, just explaining that I hadn’t included self-defence in what I said. A Muslim is supposed to “turn the other cheek” when personally affronted. My guess is that this does not include attacks on the community. I don’t know if this is stated in the Quran, although it might be. I read it in the Hadith (sayings and teachings of the Prophet M.). These are not 100% reliable but many Muslims read and believe them.
The religion is no more, and no less, violent than most others. It’s us people that selectively take the bits we want. Those who want to justify their violent actions can find the bits in the Christian Bible, Torah, Quaran, and hosts of other sacred texts, to quote. Those who fight for peace can do the same.
That’s true on the surface, but the question is: does Islam make it much easier to take bits and pieces out selectively and use them for justification of violence than other religions?
I’m an atheist, so I’m not going to sit here and tell you that the Buy-bull is entirely full of beauty. No, it’s a pretty horrible book - about 80% rancid trash that I would want children to stay far away from. But, maybe the Koran is more than 80% rancid trash.
People are always going to use “holy texts” to justify violence. So another vital quesiton is: how easily does that text (taken in its entirety) allow its followers to blindly follow those people who use certain parts of it to justify their violent causes?
Don’t think for a second “all religions are created equal” in this regard. They’re clearly not.
All people are stupid, but a good instruction manual will help them program their vcr better than a bad one…
The Supreme Court ruled, in Ali’s case, that his conconscientious objector status should have been up for hearing and judgement, as opposed to being dismissed out of hand. Then it ruled that the process was so stacked against him and others like him that the SCOTUS decided to grant Ali that status. He was not and is not a draft dodger.
.