is it possible to be a peaceful muslim?

[kendoiwan]

You'll notice that the OP specifically only mentioned Jesus, and how he preached general pacifism and there wasn't anything violent about him. Contrast this image with the one of Mohammed provided by the OP, and one can see where the OP is coming from. I don't know if the OP's depiction of Mohammed is accurate or not though.

Christianity does indeed have a bloody history, but this is more the result of the Church than of the faith.

Please don't make me start quoting Jesus. He wasn't as peaceful as the OP or you are making him out to be. Not to say he was a war monger, but it's cherry picking to say he preached general pacifism.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Please don't make me start quoting Jesus. He wasn't as peaceful as the OP or you are making him out to be. Not to say he was a war monger, but it's cherry picking to say he preached general pacifism.

I won't make you, but I'd be interested in the passages that make you think this way. I've had to read all 4 witness accounts for school, but it's been a while. I don't recall him being anything other than a very peaceful man.

 

[kendoiwan]

I won't make you, but I'd be interested in the passages that make you think this way. I've had to read all 4 witness accounts for school, but it's been a while. I don't recall him being anything other than a very peaceful man.

*Sigh

Just a couple:

Luke 22:36

He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Luke 12:49-51

I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Matthew 10:34-39

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

All that's missing in this last one is the 7 virgins in heaven...

 

[JocktheMotie]

These are innocent at best. He is telling those to follow him, the Word of God, and not the ways of their fathers, mothers, etc. He is the new path [notice the divide is generational]. Out with the old, in with the new. Also, I think you're interpreting "lost his life for me will find it" incorrectly.

 

[kendoiwan]

These are innocent at best. He is telling those to follow him, the Word of God, and not the ways of their fathers, mothers, etc. He is the new path [notice the divide is generational]. Out with the old, in with the new. Also, I think you're interpreting "lost his life for me will find it" incorrectly.

Pure interpretation.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Pure interpretation.

Is it wrong?

 

[kendoiwan]

Is it wrong?

Subjectivity by definition cannot be wrong. I read the words literally, to me a sword is a sword, fire is fire, division is division, death is death. To you, they are all metaphors for something else which makes them all benign. C'est la vi. Unless we can question a dead (undead?) man it's your interpretation versus mine. Much like what we find in the Islamic world, yet it's the interpretation of the Fundamentalist that is allowed to be represented as the interpretation of the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Subjectivity by definition cannot be wrong. I read the words literally, to me a sword is a sword, fire is fire, division is division, death is death. To you, they are all metaphors for something else which makes them all benign. C'est la vi. Unless we can question a dead (undead?) man it's your interpretation versus mine. Much like what we find in the Islamic world, yet it's the interpretation of the Fundamentalist that is allowed to be represented as the interpretation of the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

Tremendous point, especially the bolded. I do think that literal interpretation of prophets, poets, and other great orators is always a mistake. The Fundamentalists just make the most noise; a vocal minority is commonly perceived as the rule.

However, I wonder if you also find Islam to be inherently violent?

 

[Craft]

@OP

Sigh. Tsk tsk tsk.

Does anyone personally know a violent Muslim?

If your talking about the current trend of Islamic terrorism, think about the Crusades back then.

 

[kendoiwan]

Tremendous point, especially the bolded. I do think that literal interpretation of prophets, poets, and other great orators is always a mistake. The Fundamentalists just make the most noise; a vocal minority is commonly perceived as the rule.

However, I wonder if you also find Islam to be inherently violent?

How can one look at the history of the world and legitimately find Islam inherently more violent that any other religion or philosophy? Without getting into a lecture about who invaded who and when and such, it simply comes down to the leaders of any given idea, how they interpret and teach it.

Reality dictates nothing is inherently anything.

The same way most Christian leaders believe those above cited verses aren't violent (regardless of what I personally think). The same way most Christians don't literally believe there needs to be a holy war in Israel to hasten the 2nd coming (Despite what some Christian Fundamentalist think). The same way Christians no longer condone slavery although I can cite plenty of Jesus quotes that clearly do (Slaves are ok as long as you're a kind master). The same way between the hundreds of different sects of Christianity there are vast differences in practice and interpretation.

An idea is how you use it.

 

[JocktheMotie]

How can one look at the history of the world and legitimately find Islam inherently more violent that any other religion or philosophy? Without getting into a lecture about who invaded who and when and such, it simply comes down to the leaders of any given idea, how they interpret and teach it.

Reality dictates nothing is inherently anything.

The same way most Christian leaders believe those above cited verses aren't violent (regardless of what I personally think). The same way most Christians don't literally believe there needs to be a holy war in Israel to hasten the 2nd coming (Despite what some Christian Fundamentalist think). The same way Christians no longer condone slavery although I can cite plenty of Jesus quotes that clearly do. (Slaves are ok as long as you're a kind master)The same way between the hundreds of different sects of Christianity there are vast differences in practice and interpretation.

An idea is how you use it.

I never asked if you thought it was more violent, just that if you thought it was violent. I don't know much about it, but I don't think its general message is one of violence, as much I don't think Christianity's is.

 

[kendoiwan]

Blah Blah Blah

Reality dictates nothing is inherently anything.

Blah blah blah

An idea is how you use it.

I never asked if you thought it was more violent, just that if you thought it was violent. I don't know much about it, but I don't think its general message is one of violence, as much I don't think Christianity's is.

Short version since you don't feel like reading any more.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Short version since you don't feel like reading any more.

Oops! Yeah, I missed that. I understand your perspective.

 

[tcda]

Of course it is possible to be a peaceful Muslim, just like it's possible to be a peaceful Christian, Jew, etc. All of those religions specifically incite violence various times, but not by definition are their followers going to be violent.

Now a more nuanced question is whether the major organized religions tend to incite and justify violence. I would say that historically, they do, but this is at the serive of political and material interests more than of theology.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Pure interpretation.

Which is made easier by the absence of a specific interpretation methodology and the sheer multitude of conflicting passages; Islam contains less internal inconsistency and a dominant interpretation methodology in which the most recent passages take precedence over earlier ones (guess when most of the unpleasant passages originated?). Its certainly possible to be a peaceful Muslim (most are), and its even possible to be a liberal Muslim; its just relatively more difficult to overcome cognitive dissonance while doing so.

 

[matmos]

Which is made easier by the absence of a specific interpretation methodology and the sheer multitude of conflicting passages; Islam contains less internal inconsistency and a dominant interpretation methodology in which the most recent passages take precedence over earlier ones (guess when most of the unpleasant passages originated?). Its certainly possible to be a peaceful Muslim (most are), and its even possible to be a liberal Muslim; its just relatively more difficult to overcome cognitive dissonance while doing so.

Correct. Well done.

 

[tcda]

All that is completely abstract though if it can't be backed up historically that the texts of the Koran have had a more violent effect on societies than other texts. All it would prove if true is a very small difference in scale on a purely theological level between religions which are already so inherently contradictory that it becomes pointless to measure it anyway.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

I am no big fan of christianity, or any other religion for that matter

however, the Jesus Christ, real or imagined, which christians place as their ultimate guide, was not a violent man. He turned over some merchants tables and cursed a fig tree, that's about it. Therefore, I think it's possible for a true christian to be peaceful and tolerant.

Considering that Mohammed was a military leader who converted and subordinated tribes by force and imposed taxes and discriminatory laws against non-muslims and promoted the destruction or conversion of non-muslim societies, and that he is Gods foremost prophet on earth according to Muslims and one whose actions are beyond reproach, is it possible to be peaceful and tolerant and be a true muslim?

No one knows what Jesus and Mohammad did when they were not being lusted after by their biographers.

 

[simulatedworld]

Is it possible to be a white Republican?