Was Muhammad Peaceful? (Respectful Answers Only Please)

[Looncall]

You are wrong on all accounts.

Please explain.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I suspect that the violence comes from the concept of purity that seems to be so important in islam. That leads to many kinds of cruelty, such as honour killings and the like. If anyone who disagrees in a matter of religion is seen as impure, it is a very short step to deciding that they should be eliminated. As a result, we see muslims attacking not only non-muslims but also other varieties of muslim.

You are wrong on all accounts.

Are you saying that other reports of muslims attacking both fellow muslims and non-muslims are inaccurate?

Are you also saying that the act of viewing others as spiritually impure does NOT lead to religious violence and cruelty?

Are you saying that no Islamic violence can be attributed to concepts of purity? If so, could you explain what does cause acts of violence to be perpetrated in the name of Islam?

And please don't get me wrong, I certainly don't mean to be pedantic or condescending. But it seems to me the only thing that the other poster might be wrong about is the following: "As a result, we see muslims attacking other muslims and non-muslims."

He or she presupposes a cause and effect relationship: The "result' of purity concepts being taken to extremes and religious adherents perpetrating acts of cruelty and violence against the 'impure' is that muslims attack others, including fellow muslims. I can see how this might be a leap of logic. There may be no relationship at all between Islamic violence and some muslims' views on impurity.

But even if the other poster is wrong on this particular matter, I don't see how he or she could possibly be wrong on "all accounts", especially when acts of violence by muslims occur every single day. Unless of course, it is your argument that every single allegation of islamic violence is a malicious lie.

And one last thing, if you are going to assert the standard theory that islamic violence stems from cultural causes and not religious, then please explain why specific acts of cruelty and murder are done in the name of islam rather than attributed by the perpetrator to being 'cultural' in nature. Why do the actual people carrying out this violence do it in the name of their religion than attributing it to being arab or Saudi Arabian or Afghani or whatever culture they spring from?

But also, even if the violence is 100% culturally attributable, that still wouldn't make the other post wrong on all accounts.

 

[Meow Mix]

And one last thing, if you are going to assert the standard theory that islamic violence stems from cultural causes and not religious, then please explain why specific acts of cruelty and murder are done in the name of islam rather than attributed by the perpetrator to being 'cultural' in nature. Why do the actual people carrying out this violence do it in the name of their religion than attributing it to being arab or Saudi Arabian or Afghani or whatever culture they spring from?

But also, even if the violence is 100% culturally attributable, that still wouldn't make the other post wrong on all accounts.

I've always wondered about this. If it's a cultural thing, then either these cultures were immensely despicable before Islam or Islam hasn't affected the cultures positively pretty much at all. Either way sort of raises eyebrows.

Whether or not Islam has anything to do with it (personally I think despicable, ignorant people will just use whatever they can to justify their actions, not necessarily a religion, as evidenced by the compassionate/reasonable Muslims here on RF) the question remains: if Islam is a "perfect way of life" as its claimed, then why after so many centuries are some Muslim-majority countries still civil rights hellholes, cesspools of ignorance and hate? The Muslim-majority country I can even think of that isn't a cesspool is also the most secular, Turkey.

Christianity seemed to do an OK job of breaking away from the Inquisition/Salem witch-trial mentality which was part of the culture at the time. For a while the culture was ugly and horrific; burning people alive... monks flogging themselves... using the religion to keep the peasants in their place. But the culture, relatively quickly, progressed past the ugliness. I'm not saying Christianity caused the uplifting, but the point is that the very barbaric culture was able to move past it. Why? Why not these Muslim-majority countries in the hundreds of years Islam (a "perfect way of life") has been there to try to temper the culture?

For some reason, the culture hasn't been holding people back in England or America from granting peopel civil rights, refraining from murdering anyone different from them or whipping people in the streets for clothing taboos or killing family members to preserve family honor.

What's up with that? Why is the culture so dangerous in some Islamic countries and why hasn't Islam (if it's a perfect way of life) tempered the culture? Why is the culture in other countries, which used to be just as barbaric, now much more civil while Muslim countries still get defended because "it's their culture's fault?" Why hasn't their culture been uplifted in all this time, then?

 

[Eliot Wild]

It seems pretty obvious to me, despite what some very well-intentioned and usually straight-talking muslims might say to the contrary, that islam gives violent people a certain validation to rationalize their acts of cruelty.

Of course, if a peaceful person converts to islam they might not feel the need to act violently against others. But there is something about islam--something outside of pure cultural factors--that draws violent people to rationalize their behavior.

What is that? Why is that?

And Meow Mix is right. If islam is the religion of peace, as many claim, then why has it had such little effect on muting these 'cultural' urges to perpetrate violence against those whom muslims disagree with or feel threatened by?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It seems pretty obvious to me, despite what some very well-intentioned and usually straight-talking muslims might say to the contrary, that islam gives violent people a certain validation to rationalize their acts of cruelty.

Of course, if a peaceful person converts to islam they might not feel the need to act violently against others. But there is something about islam--something outside of pure cultural factors--that draws violent people to rationalize their behavior.

What is that? Why is that?

And Meow Mix is right. If islam is the religion of peace, as many claim, then why hasn't it had very little effect on muting these 'cultural' urges to perpetrate violence against those whom muslims disagree with or feel threatened by?

Off with your head!

Peace.

 

[Meow Mix]

It seems pretty obvious to me, despite what some very well-intentioned and usually straight-talking muslims might say to the contrary, that islam gives violent people a certain validation to rationalize their acts of cruelty.

Of course, if a peaceful person converts to islam they might not feel the need to act violently against others. But there is something about islam--something outside of pure cultural factors--that draws violent people to rationalize their behavior.

What is that? Why is that?

And Meow Mix is right. If islam is the religion of peace, as many claim, then why hasn't it had very little effect on muting these 'cultural' urges to perpetrate violence against those whom muslims disagree with or feel threatened by?

But part of my point is that other religions have been there, too. Other cultures have been there. Dark Ages Europe was a horrible, barbaric place. The religion was used to burn people and hold the peasants down.

But somehow the culture was able to uplift. I doubt it was Christianity, though Christianity might have played a part. Maybe Islam, if it really is a religion of peace, can play a part in the troubled Muslim world too.

But is it possible that secularism (not atheism, just government separate from religion with religious freedom for all) -- Enlightenment, the Reinaissance -- played a part...? Is that maybe why Turkey is a beacon of light and civil liberties in the otherwise troubled Muslim-majority world -- because it's the most secular and free?

 

[YmirGF]

And Meow Mix is right. If islam is the religion of peace, as many claim, then why has it had such little effect on muting these 'cultural' urges to perpetrate violence against those whom muslims disagree with or feel threatened by?

In the past, Islam ruthlessly eradicated all opposition which resulted in "peace" -- for all left alive, of course, with the victors subjugating the vanquished into dhimmi or second class citizenship status. In a very real sense, even the slightest insult towards Muslims or Islam can be used as a pretext to launch a "defensive" action, which is more than a bit of an odd for such an immensely peaceful people. Evidently their sense of "peace" is a paper-thin veneer.

 

[Autodidact]

I've always wondered about this. If it's a cultural thing, then either these cultures were immensely despicable before Islam or Islam hasn't affected the cultures positively pretty much at all. Either way sort of raises eyebrows.

Whether or not Islam has anything to do with it (personally I think despicable, ignorant people will just use whatever they can to justify their actions, not necessarily a religion, as evidenced by the compassionate/reasonable Muslims here on RF) the question remains: if Islam is a "perfect way of life" as its claimed, then why after so many centuries are some Muslim-majority countries still civil rights hellholes, cesspools of ignorance and hate? The Muslim-majority country I can even think of that isn't a cesspool is also the most secular, Turkey.

Christianity seemed to do an OK job of breaking away from the Inquisition/Salem witch-trial mentality which was part of the culture at the time. For a while the culture was ugly and horrific; burning people alive... monks flogging themselves... using the religion to keep the peasants in their place. But the culture, relatively quickly, progressed past the ugliness. I'm not saying Christianity caused the uplifting, but the point is that the very barbaric culture was able to move past it. Why? Why not these Muslim-majority countries in the hundreds of years Islam (a "perfect way of life") has been there to try to temper the culture?

For some reason, the culture hasn't been holding people back in England or America from granting peopel civil rights, refraining from murdering anyone different from them or whipping people in the streets for clothing taboos or killing family members to preserve family honor.

What's up with that? Why is the culture so dangerous in some Islamic countries and why hasn't Islam (if it's a perfect way of life) tempered the culture? Why is the culture in other countries, which used to be just as barbaric, now much more civil while Muslim countries still get defended because "it's their culture's fault?" Why hasn't their culture been uplifted in all this time, then?

My opinion? The Enlightenment. The values we cherish are enlightenment values: liberty, equality, free inquiry and free expression. They have nothing to do with religion, Christian or Muslim. The Enlightenment happened to happen in Europe for historical reasons tied up with the history of Christianity, as well as rediscovery of Greek culture. The reason Christians are no longer slaughtering their way across Europe and the New World is that Christians now live in secular countries with non-theocratic governments based on Enlightenment values that won't let them. If Christianity were still running Europe, they would be just as bad as Muslims, if not worse.

Islam has not gone through Enlightenment, and so is not restrained by those Enlightenment values. Islam still seeks a theocratic, that is, Sharia government, analogous to when The Church declared the Divine Right of Kings. Until secular, Enlightenment values hold sway in Muslim countries, Islam will continue to run rampant over individual rights, just as the Christian church did for centuries.

It's not to Christianity's credit or Islam's fault. It's all about how far secular, Enlightenment values are in effect in those countries.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course Muhammad was completely peaceful. If anyone says different, his followers will kill them. Therefore we all agree.

 

[Meow Mix]

My opinion? The Enlightenment. The values we cherish are enlightenment values: liberty, equality, free inquiry and free expression. They have nothing to do with religion, Christian or Muslim. The Enlightenment happened to happen in Europe for historical reasons tied up with the history of Christianity, as well as rediscovery of Greek culture. The reason Christians are no longer slaughtering their way across Europe and the New World is that Christians now live in secular countries with non-theocratic governments based on Enlightenment values that won't let them. If Christianity were still running Europe, they would be just as bad as Muslims, if not worse.

Islam has not gone through Enlightenment, and so is not restrained by those Enlightenment values. Islam still seeks a theocratic, that is, Sharia government, analogous to when The Church declared the Divine Right of Kings. Until secular, Enlightenment values hold sway in Muslim countries, Islam will continue to run rampant over individual rights, just as the Christian church did for centuries.

It's not to Christianity's credit or Islam's fault. It's all about how far secular, Enlightenment values are in effect in those countries.

I don't mean to insult Christianity or Islam, which I do believe can indeed be great engines of peace and prosperity; but I agree with you... and not just because I'm an atheist. There's a huge difference between secularism and atheism, and there are many theistic secularists. If worldviews and religions can be the engine of peace and prosperity, Enlightenment movements (secularism) are the vehicles which allow them to do so.

 

[Madhuri]

Hi friends! first of all I believe Muhammad (PBUH) was the most peaceful person I have ever heard or read of (trust me on this I have read of too many people).

There are saints in Eastern traditions that would try to avoid even stepping on ants for wanting to minimise suffering. Saints in the Christian traditions show the example of harm none. Even modern PAGANS have this idea of 'harm none'. But the Muslim Prophet? And Muslims themselves? Even on this forum I've seen comments from Muslim members about how killing can be justified.

I'm trying to think of a religion that is less peaceful.

 

[Madhuri]

I don't mean to insult Christianity or Islam, which I do believe can indeed be great engines of peace and prosperity; but I agree with you... and not just because I'm an atheist. There's a huge difference between secularism and atheism, and there are many theistic secularists. If worldviews and religions can be the engine of peace and prosperity, Enlightenment movements (secularism) are the vehicles which allow them to do so.

As a theist, I believe that secularism is incredibly important.

 

[England my lionheart]

My opinion? The Enlightenment. The values we cherish are enlightenment values: liberty, equality, free inquiry and free expression. They have nothing to do with religion, Christian or Muslim. The Enlightenment happened to happen in Europe for historical reasons tied up with the history of Christianity, as well as rediscovery of Greek culture. The reason Christians are no longer slaughtering their way across Europe and the New World is that Christians now live in secular countries with non-theocratic governments based on Enlightenment values that won't let them. If Christianity were still running Europe, they would be just as bad as Muslims, if not worse.

I agree,the history of my country bears the scars of Christianity and in Ireland is still an open wound,it is only since enlightenment we that we have been able to move on.
The problem for Islam in many countries is its quite impossible to seperate Government from religion as Islam in itself is very political with organisations such as Hezbollah,the Muslim Brotherhood,Hamas and Fatah and more and poitiacal Islam is growing all thetime.

Islam has not gone through Enlightenment, and so is not restrained by those Enlightenment values. Islam still seeks a theocratic, that is, Sharia government, analogous to when The Church declared the Divine Right of Kings. Until secular, Enlightenment values hold sway in Muslim countries, Islam will continue to run rampant over individual rights, just as the Christian church did for centuries.

It's not to Christianity's credit or Islam's fault. It's all about how far secular, Enlightenment values are in effect in those countries.

Absolutely

 

[Wombat]

Hello every body,
According to the following two points I vote that Muhammad is a peaceful man if He's not the peace itself..

Welcome and well posted.:clap

 

[England my lionheart]

There are saints in Eastern traditions that would try to avoid even stepping on ants for wanting to minimise suffering. Saints in the Christian traditions show the example of harm none. Even modern PAGANS have this idea of 'harm none'. But the Muslim Prophet? And Muslims themselves? Even on this forum I've seen comments from Muslim members about how killing can be justified.

I'm trying to think of a religion that is less peaceful.

True,i think because Islam has violent roots in Muhammed it will inevitably bear violent fruit,as you say its difficult to think of a religion less peaceful than Islam and their are many examples in the ahadith of Muhammeds violence for all to see.

 

[Caladan]

Muhammad has lived and made his mark in a tribal society with much tensions. he made war with other tribes including his own, he also tried to strike alliances, and has also showed diplomatic skills in working for reconciliation and stability between major warring tribes in Medina and by addressing the security and religious freedom of Jews, Christians, and Pagans.
The question of character whether he was peaceful or not can be interpreted to be a romantic one, I would much rather dig for the practical man who was born into the dominate tribe in Mecca, and the tribe who at first opposed his message more than all. Muhammad waged wars, as costumery in the time his forces took slaves from defeated tribes, reality must have been harsh in the desert of what is now Saudi Arabia, hostile leaders to the new message of Muhammad, fierce tribal tensions, political interests, I have doubts about the limit of how much a leader can be 'peaceful', he needs to keep his edge, take into account the risks and political motives, and inspire his men, in a cruel region, he will commit cruel actions as well, from taking slaves, to taking women from defeated groups, and perhaps to massacring other people.

 

[chinu]

Was Muhammad Peaceful?

Peaceful was Muhammead,

Respectful Answers Only Please

Respectful was Muhammed,

Was Muhammad Peaceful?

As "Sun" does not try to spread "Light" on earth,
"Light" is spreaded automatically.
SIMILARLY:
"True spiritual persons" does not try to spread any "Peace",
"Peace" is spreaded by them automatically.

In fact the persons like "Muhammed" are or was only the source of peace on earth,

_/\_Jasdir.

 

[A-ManESL]

The reason I voted peaceful is because I think Muhammad(pbuh) was peaceful throughout his life. I dont mean in the sense of peace which means no outward violence but in the Islamic sense. Since I am feeling bored right now, here is a little rant on what Islamic peace means to me:

The essence of Islam is oneness of God. Merely to say one believes in oneness of God is just a concept in the mind. What is important to actualize it, to make it a living experience. To experience the Unity of God, one has to realize the unity in its wholeness, permeating and uniting all aspects of life. Only such uniting of aspects will allow one to experience the Unity of God in true meaning. For else, while in theory one is believing in Oneness of God, in practice one is constructing absract little demi-realities for oneself. Unless all of these are woven together to form one True Reality, de-facto understanding of Oneness has not been achieved.

How does one go about achieving this Unity? The primary thing to understand is that it is not the visible aspects of any experience or action which really matter in this quest for Unity, it is the underlying intentions and the inner meanings of all aspects which are really important. The same action may appear to be bad or good depending upon the inner intentions of the doer. The Prophet of Islam fought wars and so did the Meccan idolators, but the governing intention behind their actions differentiated who was in the right and who was in the wrong. Likewise, Cain slew and so did Hazrat Khidr, but it is said that while the former was wrong the latter was certainly right.

It is important to realize that the appearance of things is very different from the reality of things. The Prophet prayed, "Lord, show me things as they really are", precisely for this purpose. If a lion is tearing the flesh of his pray or a volcano is erupting, or a meteor crashes on earth, these appear as actions in the ordinary scheme of things. Apparently, they seem to have nothing in common with God's oneness. But this is precisely, where the deception comes in. We are so used to thinking of God and related ideas in closed bracketed terms that such things appear far removed to us, whereas in reality, these are as much part of religion and spirituality as much say, prayer, charity and supplication is. The reason that it doesnt appear so to us, is precisely because we are not at that stage yet where we can truly understand and believe in the Oneness of God. Hence, the Quran says "The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth his praise; but ye understand not their praise."(17:44)

The idea of this Unity can be understood and actualized once one has grasped that everything (other then man) behaving in according with Unity automatically. Seemingly diverse phenomena are all woven together harmoniously to become a reflection of God's oneness (wahdat). By acceding ones own self to this harmony, (or to use the Islamic word, by surrendering to it) one can actualize this Unity. This means, every action, every thought, every thing of a person must be in accordance with the divine plan one has in front of him. This may sound constricting to some, but for them it can't be helped. Imam Ghazali, a famous scholar of Islam, beautifully described this thus "Are you ready to cut off your head and place your foot on it? If so, come; Love awaits you! Love is not grown in a garden, nor sold in the marketplace; whether you are a king or a servant, the price is your head, and nothing less. Yes, the cost of the elixir of love is your head! Do you hesitate? O miser, It is cheap at that price!"

Now what is meant by the concept of Islamic peace. It is nothing but the practicing of this oneness itself, i.e. practicing "Islam" itself in a sense, indeed the word Islam literally means peace. Any society, or individual, which is totally in harmony with God's design (or howsoever it perceives the metaphysical Reality) is practicing Islamic peace. If you are a student by studying for your exams you are practicing Islamic peace, if you are employed by working honestly in the office you are practicing Islamic peace and so on. In that sense, Prophet Muhammad was peaceful.

(end rant)

 

[Madhuri]

That was a good explanation, A-Man.

Do you think that 'peace' is the appropriate translation? It's just that this concept of peace is nothing to do with the English definition of the word. Is this perhaps why Muslims and non-Muslims are constantly arguing over such terms, as we give them very different meanings? I sometimes wonder if some Muslims even have the same understanding as you seem to have.

But to sum up, what you are saying is that the Prophet had Inner Peace, but on the outwardly, superficial level, his actions were non-peaceful? (according to an English definition of the word)

 

[A-ManESL]

That was a good explanation, A-Man.

Thanks Madhuri . I hope you are well.

Do you think that 'peace' is the appropriate translation?

Maybe a better translation would be Islamic peace.

But the thing is that peace is tied up with the concept of justice tightly. If in an unjust society, violence isnt there due to fear of backlash, or for some other reason people are living without outward hostility but in fear, you wouldnt call that peace would you? But the concept of justice in Western philosophy is so diverse in itself (what is true justice anyway, from Plato to Rawls) so I think by induction there exist many ideas of peace too. Hence I think when we use the term peace, it is usually clear by context what kind of peace is being referred to. In this setting, when one is talking of Islam, peace can be assumed as a shorthand for "Islamic peace".

But to sum up, what you are saying is that the Prophet had Inner Peace, but on the outwardly, superficial level, his actions were non-peaceful? (according to an English definition of the word)

Yes, of course. If you are defining going to war (for whatever reason, defensive or otherwise) as non-peaceful, then his actions were non-peaceful.

Regards