heidern said:
This is an argument on semantics and I don't see value in that.
That is your opinion.
But if you are using this absolutist definition of what is a violent institution and what is non violent then yes I would say Islam is violent.
Good.
But I would also say under this definition any non-violent philosophy is by definition a stupid philosophy,
That is your opinion.
since it would preclude self defense i.e. if you followed it you'd have to stand by and see your children killed if they were attacked, a bad thing.
No, there is a difference between a philosophy that preaches its followers to commit violence, and a philosophy that keeps its self out of violence and lets the follower decide for his own.
The first example is an example of a violent philosophy, the second one is an example of a nonviolent philosophy, do you see the difference?
Being a follower of a nonviolent philosophy such as the one in the second example does not mean in any way that you are not allowed to commit violence to defend yourself or to attack others, neither does it make the philosophy violent because the follower choose to commit violence.
Under this definition Islam being violent is not inherently a bad thing, that would depend on the specifics and whether Islam encourages wrongful violence, if you have any examples?
Wrongful or not, it is still violence in both cases, if it is a good or a bad thing that Islam is preaching on wrongful/deserved violence is also another discussion.
I think you're definition isn't a good one to use though in the general sense, since it puts excessive emphasis on one aspect. If a man kills 5 people that are attacking his family, even though he's commited a greater degree of violence than most people, doesn't make him a violent person. In fact he may be a pacifist at heart that always tries to avoid confrontation and break up fights, he could rightly be called a peaceful person, even though he has the capacity to, and has commited great violence. Under this definition Islam could be called a peaceful institution, but it would again depend on the specifics and whether Islam encourages wrongful violence, if you have any examples?
Defining the characteristics of a man is different and more complex than that of a philosophy, a man unlike a book changes constantly and therefore the definition of his characteristics change constantly too.
Take batman for example, his goal is to achieve peace in his town, but he uses violence to achieve that, this makes him a violent person no matter what his real intention is.
The same applies to the man in your example who have killed 5 men in self defense, his intention might not be violence, but he has committed violence and therefore can be characterized and defined as a violent person for he has committed violence.
Now we come to the part about relativity, the man in your example might not be considered violent by people around him if you compare him to Hitler for example, but he is a violent man compared to Gandhi for he has committed violence and whether it was just or needed it doesn't change the fact that it is violence.
Religions that never encourage violence are non violent religions under your initial definition and like I said would by definition be stupid.
In your opinion.
Misinterpretation can happen to anything. But the point you gloss over is that responsibility lies with the misinterpreter(he doesn't have to misinterpret) and the people that follow him(they don't have to follow him) not the source material.
?
Islam is said to be a way of life, it covers everything. Violence is part of life and thus it is covered.
I like how you play with the words, you choose to say that Islam covers violence instead of Islam asks its followers to commit violence.
In fact if it wasn't covered as you suggest misinterpreters could turn around and say that anything violence related is acceptable so even silence wouldn't help stop misinterpretation.
did I say that without misinterpretation the world would be violence free?
The though point is Islam offers guidance. It's up to any individual to follow it.
It doesn't change the fact that it is violent, you are only justifying why it is violent and justification doesn't turn violence into nonviolence.
Empowering the individual and giving them the responsibility to choose I would say is a good thing.
Jihad and Sharia punishments aren't an option, they are duties.
And if Islam is true and this life is a test, then it's awfully nice of Allah(swt) to give us the free guidance in the Quran to help us along(he didn't have to). And if we're not good enough to follow it, well that's the whole point of the test...
Again, its not free guidance, these are duties!
Can I choose not to get stoned by the sharia law if I have gay sex? can I choose not to get beaten by my Muslim husband if I rebel him?
