The recently held Congressional hearing about Muslims in America returns us to the question of whether "Islam is peace," as President George W. Bush put it on September 17, 2001, or a religion that promotes hate and violence, as its critics allege. Both are wrong. Islam -- like all other religions -- can be read both ways.
Muslims seeking to justify the use of force quote verses in the Quran such as, "Slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them"' (9:5). And they can cite the Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, stating, "I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah" (Muslim 1.9.30). At the same time, the champions of peace can quote the Quran itself, which states, "There is no compulsion in matter of faith" (2:256) and "No human can force a change of heart over which God alone has control" (10:99-100).
For some, jihad is interpreted as a "holy war" to subdue the non-believers; for others -- a spiritual struggle for moral self-improvement.
Most revealingly, similar texts, open to both kinds of readings, are found in other religions. On the one hand, Christians draw on passages from the New Testament, which portray Jesus as a wrathful conqueror striking down sinners with his sword and ruling with an iron rod (Revelation 19:15); while on the other, they can quote Matthew to "Turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-39) and "Put your sword back in its place" (Matthew 26:52).
Jews can read the Old Testament as condoning violence. For instance, "As for the towns of these people that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You must annihilate them," (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). And even revenge, as in "An eye for an eye." However, through the ages, rabbis have interpreted the same passage as referring merely to monetary compensation. And Jews have invoked pacifistic passages, such as "Nation shall not lift sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4; c.f. Micah 4:3)
I could go on and on. However, two observations seem incontestable. Those who seek to point to Islam as a religion that promotes violence should take note: It can be just as readily quoted to support nonviolence. And, in this way, it is not different from other major religions. It is up to the believers which interpretation they follow. However, condemning their faith as inherently violent cannot be justified.
Hence, to the extent that the Congressional hearings are focused on finding out which interpretation of Islam is gaining ground among our Muslim fellow citizens, it is a legitimate pursuit. So is to call on Muslim leaders and Mullahs who embrace the nonviolent version of Islam -- and to urge all religious mavens to follow the same course.
Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at The George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale 2007). For more discussion, visit http://icps.gwu.edu.