Is there something in Islam, which encourages violence in its followers?

Caveat: I wish to present certain points for a reasoned, not angry, debate. Please note this is put forward not to hurt any religious sensibilities, but to carry out a reasoned debate on religious issues. For one must believe such a reasoned debate is possible even in matters of religion.

Points for Consideration

1. Islam was born out of strife and war. The prophet's life was a series of fights with nonbelievers. Which he really fought. Christianity, on the other hand, was born out of the suffering and forgiveness of its Prophet, not his fighting.

2. On the whole, proselytization by the followers of Islam has been accompanied by violence, as different from the Christian Missionaries who adopted the humanist route. It is not difficult to understand why if we look at point 1.

3. The concept of jehad (holy war) against kafirs (infidels/nonbelievers) and the butaparasta (Idol-worshippers/heathens) has historical roots in the birth of Islam.

4. There is no provision in Islam for change in secular affairs of its followers. The word of the Book is final. Its writ must run in all matters. Therefore, the followers have no option but to look to the means adopted at the time of the Prophet, and seek all solutions there.

5. Hence, Islam as it is traditionally practiced, and its loyal followers, have no option but to use violence and strife to achieve their goals. And they find nothing objectionable or unjustified about it.

6. This may not be mouthed by the followers in debate with other religionists, but is the way the devouts think.

7. The devout continue to dominate the thinking and action of a major chunk of the followers of Islam. The other more compassionate/tolerant group is a fringe group.

Solution

1. Basic and fundamental changes in Islam's outlook towards other peoples and religionists, wherein they are not considered kafirs to be waged a jehad against.

2. Peoples professing other faiths need not necessarily be the enemies of the believers of Islam. Nor should their faith be inferior to Islam. Each follower has its own right to his faith, and peaceful coexistence is the only way different faiths can harmonise.

3. Accepting that although violence may have been integral to life in the Prophets times, it doesn't mean it was to be furthered or legitimised, but to be reduced since the Prophet himself suffered because of it.

4. Questioning religious sanction to violence as a means of solving issues.

5. Separating secular matters of day to day living from spiritual matters. Secular matters need reform according to the times and circumstances. Spiritual truths remain eternal. (Like, for example, the Hindus have done by separating their shrutis- eternal spiritual truths- from their smritis-secular affairs.)

Unless some serious rethinking is done by the ideologues of Islam, and accepted by the preachers, the maulavis in the madrasas, and the common believer, the followers have no respite from a violent way of solving issues.

Neither have those who are in their firing line and have to bear the brunt of methods, which spring from such ideology.

Ajai

19 July 2006