I asked the graduate students enrolled in my course “Islam through Christian and Muslim Eyes” to reflect on the problem with conventional wisdom that says, “Islam is a violent religion.” Below are the responses from the forum discussion:
To say that “Islam is a violent religion” would be over generalizing and ignorantly making a statement about a religion that has multiple layers and sub groups. Saying that Islam as a whole is violent would be one of many misconceptions and widespread ideas from what media might portray to us or what we might conclude in our own thoughts without much exposure and/or knowledge of the religion. This statement would probably not come from a person with knowledge of the religion and the people behind it. Within the key principles of Islam, there is no mention of or compulsion toward violence. It calls for submission, confession, totality, justice, equality (among men) and other principles, but not for violence as a way of life or as an expression of their religion.
-Lisa
The issue with the statement that Islam is a violent religion is that while this is held as a conventional truth is it not utterly true. Although the basis for the violence in Islam finds its roots in the Qur’an (2:190-194; 2:216; 2:217; 3:121; 3:169) and also in the teaching of the Hadith it is unreasonable to say that Islam is completely violent and cannot be separated from its violence. I would venture to say that most people believe that to be Muslim is to be violent. Some of the most peace-loving people that I have met are Muslim. They break the mold of violence within Islam. While I would say that you cannot deny the fact that violence is a part of Islam and the practice of Islam it would be unfair to say that all Muslims are therefore violent and condone violence. Yes, Islam can be a violent religion but not in the entirety of its expression and practice. We cannot assume because some Muslims are violent that all are violent, this exposes our ignorance.
– Jennifer
This statement seems myopic, stereotyping all Muslims by those seen in the news. And who makes the news? Terrorists and radical groups who often use violence in the name of Islam. Is it true that the Koran allows for violence against infidels? Definitely. Does this make Islam a violent religion? Not necessarily…
The Old Testament and revelation are filled with graphic images of war. Does this make Christianity a violent religion? What if we were taking this class 1000 years ago at the height of the Crusades; would we consider Christianity a violent religion?
To say Islam is a violent religion is to say that violence is inherent to Islam. Put again, a good Muslim should exhibit violence. Muslims would tell you that this is not essential to the faith; rather Islam is a religion of submission. If this submission requires violence, then so be it. If it requires peace, then so be it.
The truth is, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent people. It is therefore damaging to the cause of evangelism to categorize the entire faith as violent, especially when most aren’t. If we do, we will be seen as believing only by what is seen in the news. What if we were characterized only by the Christians seen in the news? Scary thought. If we want the right to be heard let’s be sensitive to discern the reality of the core of Islam.-Joe
Islam has two faces. One is moderate Islam and the other is Extremist Islam. We cannot simply say, “Islam is peaceable religion by the side of moderate Islam.” Most Muslims are peaceable and moderate. But minority extremist Islamic movements are militant and warlike. Besides the vibrant history of Islam it is getting more violent than before. Despite the variety of the Muslim world, the widespread problems of democracy, human rights and religious freedom indicate major problems in Islam. Modern Islam has faced a serious crisis. This caused the growth of Islamic extremism. The target of the extremist Islamic movements is a secular Islam which has forsaken true Islam. They believe that the only solution to their problems is that they return to the purity of the faith. They regard ‘Christendom’ as an enemy and it caused crisis of Islamic world. So they try to attack and threaten the Western and Christians so as to escape of collapse of modern Islam. Despite Daniel Pipes has suggested 10 to 15 percent of Muslims throughout the world agree with the radical’s idea. This is a small minority of Muslim, but it is still tens of millions of people. We can not ignore this aggressive and violent movement in the face of extremism. We need to propagate moderated Islam to our society to prevent from hostile emotion to Muslim. We must support the voice of the moderates for the sake of reachable Muslims. But also we need to be aware of violent part of Islam. They are organized and threaten to attack the moderates along with nonbelievers like us.
-Timothy
The problem of making the statement, “Islam is a violent religion” is that Islam becomes a sweeping generalization that would give the attribute of violence to every person that calls themselves Muslim. The same limit in logic would occur with the statement that “Christianity is a charitable religion.” It implies that the attribute of charitable exists within every person who includes themselves in the name Christian; one would not go far in history to find that not every Christian is charitable. One would also not have to go far in history to find both violent and non-violent Muslims.
Gaining a reputation as a violent religion may be another matter entirely. One must consider their theology, history and current situations worldwide. In listening to the lectures, I was quite baffled by the union of religion and politics that was portrayed. Islam’s reputation of violence may be due to the present day examples of Islamic theocracies existing today. Because politics and power are inseparable and power can be abused so easily once gained, the universally dirty work of politics is then inseparable from the religion they all claim to adhere to. It is a generalization that is fallacious, but understandable when watching or reading news of modern day honor killings when the news does not also cover Muslim charities. I guess those articles wouldn’t sell as many copies.
On a note of personal experience, I lived with a Tatar Muslim family for 5 weeks as a teenager and did not find them to be at all violent. In fact, I was in a city of thousands of Muslims and found myself much safer than I had ever felt walking the streets of Columbia, SC.-Karen
Islam is often portrayed in the public eye as a violent religion. Personally, I have seen a non-violent side to Islam through relationships with Muslims and while living for two years in a Muslim country. In general, Muslims are people of relationship. They value hospitality and respect people who care about them. This is demonstrated by willingness to spend time getting to know each other. Muslim extremists are violent people when they go to extreme measures to purify the world of people who are not Muslims. I have also seen examples of violent Christians, violent Hindus and violent Buddhists too. I was raised in India and Thailand and had friends from different religious and cultural backgrounds. Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism (and other religions too) are not violent in nature. Within different religions, there are evil people who do acts of violence. Generally, the news portrays acts of violence when referring to Islam, especially related to the war on terror. I know from personal experience that Islam is not a violent religion and deeply desire that Christians seek to build relationships with Muslims, earn the right to be heard, live lives that Muslims respect, and then seek to share our faith with a people that God created, loves, and sent His Son Jesus to die for their sins. Therefore, we can see that Islam is not a violent religion.
– Erin
It is the belief held by many that Islam is a religion surrounded by violence and the unnecessary taking of lives, unless one studies and takes the time to fully understand the ins and outs of this complex religion, it is quite right that this is the conclusion to be held. As we listen to many news reports and stories portrayed in the media, it is easy to understand why this is the conclusion that is being held. A further study of Islam shows that there is a tolerance for violence within the guidelines of the Quran. In essence is Islam a violent religion? Yes and no, having spent time among Muslims in Indonesia I have come to the conclusion that though theologically Muslims have the potential and in some cases the right to exercise violent behaviors, the vast majority do not. The Muslims that I have interacted with are the kindest people who feel the pressure of being stigmatized because of the generalization that they are given by the media to the western world.
-Ellen
Well it is not good to knock down another religion. All we can do is use scripture text, and see if our actions line up with the word of God. We know that the bible our way of life. So saying that Islam is a violent religion is crazy. Saying that Muslims are violent is stereotyping to me. It seems that the news media have a way of bashing this religion, and reporting all types of bad things. Truth be told they are not that bad. I’m sure every religion has its obstacles, and we can’t judge. The vast majority of Muslims really don’t bother anyone. News media really have a way at times bashing and marking people for the bad; when they really aren’t that bad. So we must get to know the religion and research in order to better know the people. -Rick
It seems, to me, that this statement is too narrow. Like Christians, Muslims come from many different areas and places, with an array of beliefs, about what it means to live out their faith. This is the very same kind of generalization that we as Christians would find repugnant if it were said of us.
-Luke
This topic has been subject to much debate over centuries and certainly has picked up steam in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Maybe proponents, who argue Islam is not violent and only a few Muslims are violent, are correct. Maybe a few Muslims have hijacked parts of the Qur’an and made Islam seem violent. After all, a few Christians have taken similar actions in the past to justify violence (think Eric Rudolph). However, when one looks at the history of Islam and its spread across North Africa and Asia, they are hard pressed to find non-violent conquests. Much of the spread of Islam was conducted under violent campaigns. Today, justified violence in the name of Islam can be seen in governments such as Iran and Saudi Arabia and in societies throughout the world where Muslims take a few sayings of the Qur’an and use them to justify violence.
Muhammad may not have intended Islam to be connected to violence, but the connection certainly exists. Perhaps the connection is stronger in cultures and societies where violence is an everyday norm. Christians use violence in many regions in Africa. We would not condone their actions as Christian, but they would claim to Christians nonetheless. Their actions are products of the society and culture in which they live in.
-Jonathan
I think that part of the problem is that there is an element of truth to the statement (at least from an outsider’s perspective), but it does not encompass all that is Islam or all that are Muslims.
For the longest time, I only had been taught a few things about Islam: the militaristic push across Africa and into Spain in the early history of Islam (also alluded to in the lectures), how people reacted to possible traffic accidents in Egypt (throw up your hands and say, “As Allah wishes”), and a very little bit about the Crusades. Some of this is historical and some is anecdotal, but it is not complete. For context, this teaching was also in the mid to late 1980s.
One conversation I will not forget is one I had with a cab driver in Singapore a few years ago. He just offered up the question [paraphrased], “Do you know why you will never hear of a Singaporean Muslim Terrorist?” He said that it was because there was no need for a Singaporean Muslim to fight that way. There was no incentive when the local government took care of their needs and was not hostile.
I guess my point is that there are many things that go into making one radical or violent. It is difficult to just pin it all on one thing when the category of people we are referring to consists of 1.3 billion people on several continents.-Aaron
As one who has little knowledge of Islam and whom the Triune God is giving grace to study it greater in depth, I can personally say that most of the things I have seen in the media through life portray Islam as violent and negative. I think this is mainly related to the radical terrorist aspect that is directly linked with Islam; particularly in reference to Jihad. Since 9/11, Islam being identified as a violent religion has increased more and more. With the many radical terrorists claiming the name of Islam, it is an easy case for the media and the general public to label Islam as violent. For example, not too long ago, there was a crazy guy in Chapel Hill, NC who tried to run over a mob of UNC college students in the name of Islam. Shortly after this in Raleigh, NC, there was a big federal trial of a suspected “Islamic Terrorist.” After watching years of television that show the images of Islamic men and women coming out of federal court buildings and seeing videos of Muslims shaking machine guns around like Osama, it is easy to identify Islam with violence.
Of course there is the small, small voice of the local Mosques and Muslims who publicly combat this view of violence by claiming Islam is a peaceful religion; but the voice is mostly unnoticed. I have heard US Muslims make the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion, but the only reason I heard the claim in the first place is because I take notice of world religions. To the average secular, tv watching man, the small voices make no difference. The Islamic voice of peace cannot overcome the American’s mental image of the World Trade Center collapsing with people jumping out of the windows with Osama laughing in the background.Yet it is absurd to associate the entire Muslim population with violence just because a select few are crazy. Likewise, it is absurd to discount all of Christianity because of an ungodly TV preacher who claimed the name of Christ, but then cheated on his wife and didn’t pay his taxes. Islam as a whole must be studied and analyzed. Unfortunately, Johnny and Jill from 1st Baptist Church may not take the time necessary to understand Islam as a whole and therefore never change their view of Islam as a violent religion.
Finally, I must say that because I have such little knowledge of Islam, I still am inclined not to discredit all the things I have heard to this point in life about the violence associated with Islam. With the many books floating around on Jihad, there is no doubt that Islam portrays violence, but I still have much to learn. I am glad to have sat under Dr. Emir Caner for a semester to hear some of his views on Jihad. I hope to grow in more knowledge as the semester goes on.-Jeff
One of the big problems is that conventional wisdom is based primarily on the amount of media coverage that a group is given. While there seems to be new efforts to portray a more balanced view of Islam, news outlets always give more attention to sensational attention grabbing stories, and violence gets ratings in our culture. There are probably just as many negative stories about Christians who abuse power, but they tend to be focused on individual offenders, and since we are more likely to know and interact with many Christians (especially here in the south where I live) we are less likely to generalize and stereotype based on peoples offenses.
-Eric
One is reminded of the old parable about the 3 blind Hindus who first encountered an elephant and were asked what they experienced. One at the trunk described a creature like a large snake or rope. One at the foreleg described a creature like the trunk of a tree. One at the side described a creature like a great wall.
So, as we “blind” observers look at Islam, what IS this creature?
To avoid blindness it is good to seek inputs from experts. It is VERY significant to me that Muslims Dr. M. Z. Jasser and Dr. Tawfik Hamid want Imams to REVOKE the violent passages of the Koran and related “holy” books, since “good” Muslims avoid them, and Muslims hell bent on violent Jihad USE them to subjugate and kill. Add likeviews of N. Darwish, W. Shoebat, etc.
Add comments like those of expert Andrew C. McCarthy (author of the book “The Grand Jihad”), who says, “Its purpose is to supplant American constitutional democracy with sharia law, just as it would establish sharia throughout the world. ”
And, “There is not one single Islam, let alone one “true” Islam. There are many. They have a common core, but numerous interpretations of the faith are legitimately identifiable as “Islam.” To give just a small demonstration of this, putatively moderate Indonesia was riven in April 2008 when fundamentalists screaming, “Burn, burn!” and “Kill, kill!” torched and stoned a mosque belonging to a sect known as the Ahmadi. The latter consider themselves Muslims but are deemed heretics by the former because they neither accept Mohammed as the final prophet nor violent jihad as a divine injunction.
“The terrorists and those who share their aspirations for an Islamicized world typically draw on the Muslim Sunna: an agglomeration of the Koran (taken by believers to be the verbatim word of Allah, dictated to Mohammed in Arabic by the angel Gabriel), the tafsir (authoritative Koranic commentary), the hadith (the words and traditions of Muhammad recorded in six different voluminous collections that date from the eighth and ninth centuries), and the sira (authoritative biographies of the Prophet, including the remnants of a hagiographic account written by Ibn Ishaq in the eighth century, about 150 years after Muhammad’s death). Within this corpus, there is abundant scriptural compulsion toward, and approbation of, terrorism, beheadings, limb-severing, stoning, slavery, etc. When the “radicals” cite it accurately to justify their atrocities, and we respond by harrumphing about “false” Islam and “un-Islamic activity,” we sound like idiots to the audience we’re trying to reach.”
And, ““Islamist” is the most apt descriptor for the belief system which holds that Islam is the complete, obligatory guide to human existence, governing all matters political, social, cultural, and religious, from cradle to grave (and, of course, beyond). “Islamist” is the term invoked over three-quarters of a century ago by the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna.17 It refers not just to terrorists but to the hundreds of millions of believers who share the terrorist goal of installing sharia societies though they do not actively encourage brutality. For clarity’s sake, the Islamist terrorists should be referred to as exactly that: “Islamist terrorists.”
“These descriptions are very ugly,” decried Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2007. “It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.” So is it wrong, then, to shrink from the conclusion that the real problem is Islam? Have I rationalized my way into a less egregious but still counterproductive form of the very political correctness I condemned in Willful Blindness and, again, throughout this book? I am not a Muslim, and I appreciate that there is a plethora of Islamic forms. But I also believe Banna was right: what he referred to as “Islamism” is what Islam essentially calls for. Hair-splitting between “Islamism” and “Islam” runs the risk of doing exactly what we must avoid doing: minimizing the challenge confronting us and suggesting that there is a vibrant, preponderant “Islam,” markedly different from purportedly aberrant “Islamism,” that somehow does not see sharia-imposition as obligatory. In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that is true.”
And, “Having “experienced Islam on three continents,” the president knows that many Muslims see him as a Muslim, regardless of how he sees himself. Sharia rejects the concept of renouncing what the Koran calls “the Religion of Truth.” As we’ve noted, Islam brands apostasy a capital crime. From the perspective of Islamic law, if Obama’s father was a Muslim, then he is a Muslim. So even though he is an avowed Christian, Obama fully grasps the significance of his Islamic roots for Muslims: Not merely the son of a Muslim man, but the stepson of a second Muslim man, who actually raised him for four of his childhood years as a Muslim in Indonesia—the world’s most populous Islamic country, and one of which it is very likely he became a naturalized citizen.”
And, “Islam remains a great power among men, so slavery has not seen its final extinction. It is that simple. Though officially outlawed, slavery is practiced still in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as in Sudan, Mauritania, and other Muslim countries. The endorsement is in the scriptures. “Forbidden to you are…married women, except those whom you own as slaves,” pronounces Sura 4:23–24. Robert Spencer elaborates: The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors…. The Prophet Muhammad originated such legislation. After one successful battle, he told his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also.”
And, well, read the book “The Grand Jihad” and reach your own conclusions.
Send forth many missionaries and pray, but also keep your powder dry.
my response: there are two things that distinguish Islam. First, the advance of Islam is through conquest. Islam has never been a freely bestowed decision. Conquered nations become Islamic by force. This is not so with Christianity, Judaism, and most other religious beliefs.
Second, Where is the loud outcry about unjust violence by supposedly peaceful Moslems? There is a passivity that yields (probably out of fear for their own lives and the lives of their family) to violence by default, permitting others to behave as they wish. How weak is that? When Christians are off the mark, there is a loud public response. Further, supposedly peaceful Moslems make no correction of the deliberate lies that violent Moslems tell about recorded history – such as there was no Jewish temple in Jerusalem and that the Dome of the Rock precedes Judaism in Israel.
Nancy
Hi Nancy. When you look at this historically, Islam certianly did advance the first 100 years through conquest and force, but since then, it has advanced in various ways (including force). In Pakistan, for example, Sufi saints were very succesful Muslim missionaries. You can go to the Data Ganj Baksh shrine in Lahore, right next to Badshai mosque, and that particular “saint” (as he’s called) did much to spread Islam. Another way Islam spread quite well was through trade as Muslim traders were famous. Today, it’s spreading in some areas through immigration. In Canada, for example, the increase in Muslims went up 158% between 1981 and 1991, primarily through immigrating. Muslims have flooded in to Canada. In reference to this country, hundreds of thousands of African-Americans have chosen to embrace Islam, often on their own volition. And, in reference to the spread of Christianity, is it not accurate to say that the one (Constantine) who said, “By this sign (cross), conquer,” spread Chrisitanity by rather forceful means? It wasn’t good for the faith, but that’s what he did. Also, during the Third Reich in Germany, many German Christians say today: “How could we have been so passive when we knew Hitler (a baptized Catholic) was murdering Jews? How could we have turned a blind eye to that? Some, of course, like Bonheffer opposed the regime, and paid for it with his life, but many Christians said nothing. A qualified yes to your second statement that Muslims have not opposed extremist Muslims strongly and forecfully enough, but they have done something. For examle, if you go to the University of North Carolina webpage, you can see all the Muslim leaders who have publicly denounced acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. Here is the link: http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm I hope that helps.
Warren Larson
Take a contemplative look at: http://www.radicalislam.org/content/joseph-nassralla?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Did+you+say+never+again%3F&utm_campaign=RI+Newsletter+26&utm_term=26-vid_jpg
Also, in studying the anti-terrorism statements at the referenced http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm I notice most came just after 9/11/01 and none are later than 2008. Some fine words, but I can’t help wondering if they are all taqiyya. Sad to have to even think that way.
May i respectfully suggest a careful reading of:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_shariah_threat_to_america.html