In the media, Islam is sometimes referred as the “religion of peace”.
Not well versed in neither the Koran or the Hadith, but Muhammad himself was not exactly a pacifist from what I could gather. What is the rationale for claiming that this religion/ideology would be particularly peaceful?
The word Islam comes from the Arabic root S-L-M, that means to be peaceful/to submit.
A quick Google search
Yes, and the Post Office says that “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” It’s an expression of intent, not an iron-clad guarantee.
I know that’s not the official motto of the Post Office, but both sayings are mostly puffery.
My understanding is that “peace” is a rather loose translation of the word, and that the literal translation is much more akin to “submission” as in “submission to the will of God”.
So “peace” is purely based on the etymological origins of the word Islam (even though that etymology seem very oblique, most sources I found refer to submission, surrender, submit)?
Based on that Islam would be a religion of peace just as much that Scientology is a religion of science.
We all know this doesn’t mean anything and wouldn’t give the assertion any credibility.
Surely there must be a bigger explanation to why this religion has earned the monicker of “religion of peace”.(?)
The same reason people make the identical claim about Christianity; it sounds good.
As nice as it would be to have some central office where people or groups would have to go to apply for such monikers, unfortunetly people are quite willing to apply that moniker to themselves. You don’t earn such things, nor are they taken away if unearned.
Islam is the religion of peace. Except when it isn’t.
I don’t think “the media” use that term. Politicians like to use that slogan. Muslims trying to distance themselves from the violent extremists like to use that slogan.
Surely there must be a bigger reason why my dish washing liquid says “new and improved” on it.
It’s a marketing slogan, even if many of the people use it are sincere about it.
I don’t know about improved, but hopefully they didn’t sell you old soap.
See that’s just it though
When claiming an eye for an eye everyone always says they were injured first, then the Quran practically commands you to hit back.
I’m not saying it’s any more violent than any other religion, but thats a long way from peaceful.
You know what the vast, vast, vast majority of young Muslims do?
They fall in love, get married, have children, and hope for a peaceful life.
So they’re no more peaceful than anyone else? Cool beans.
did a little quote searching, these are all taken out of context of course but it doesnt strike me as very peaceful. My feeling is that this is a book we could all do without
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
“As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God’s judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire” (3:10).
“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” (3:12).
“The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam. . . . He that denies God’s revelations should know that swift is God’s reckoning” (3:19).
“Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful—he that does this has nothing to hope for from God—except in self-defense” (3:28).
“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” (3:118).
“If you have suffered a defeat, so did the enemy.We alternate these vicissitudes among mankind so that God may know the true believers and choose martyrs from among you (God does not love the evil-doers); and that God may test the faithful and annihilate the infidels” (3:140).
“Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition. . . .We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home” (3:149-51).
“Believers, do not follow the example of the infidels, who say of their brothers when they meet death abroad or in battle: ‘Had they stayed with us they would not have died, nor would they have been killed.’ God will cause them to regret their words. . . . If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, God’s forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass” (3:156).
Some lovely reading, As mentioned this is taken out of context, but Its hard not to see how some of these verses could work as an incentive towards violence. Given that some people actually believe this nonsense. Remember this is the last and final words of god.
(and please no “but the bible says X bla bla bla”, Im not speaking about the bible nor am I defending it, nor do I really care about it, Islam is the topic)
Which kind of weakens everything you say after this, no?
It seems to me that if you are going to consider seriously the proposition that Islam is a “religion of peace” (or a religion of anything else, for that matter) you’d want to be consider this statements in their context. Otherwise, why bother considering them at all?
Of course it weakens the argument, that I was not trying to get away from. However If you do read these trite passages it is VERY hard not to see a pattern. To then go ahead and label this as a Religion of Peace, is very close to an insult. Jainism would be a reasonable candidate if one had to chose.
I can best quote Richard Harris (who actually read the damn thing):
“I cannot judge the quality of the Arabic; perhaps it is sublime. But the book’s contents are not. On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise nonbelievers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict. Anyone who can read passages like those quoted above and still not see a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence should probably consult a neurologist.”
Amazing, Sam Harris said the same thing. Maybe they know each other.
[quote=“TriPolar, post:18, topic:553894”]
No, you are thinking of Sam Dawkins
The OP seems to have been formatted incorrectly. It reads:
Whereas it should read