Is it really Islam's teachings that make Musllims violent?

[Underseer]

I agree completely. I typically identify as liberal, as I am most sympathetic to progressive thought and science, and I have little sympathy for traditions or nationalism or religion or any of the conservative value systems. But I do often find myself at odds with beliefs common among liberals. To me, belief about objective reality should be all a matter of probability, liberal or not, conservative or not, and I think liberals too often let their beliefs about objective reality be influenced by wishful thinking and ideology, much like conservatives.

This is epistemology. When it comes to things like sociology and economy I think it's impossible to sort out wishful thinking. I think it's better to accept that we're all victims of having rose tinted spectacles and a faulty fact filter, and do one's best to be humble about our opinions.

Yep. If the neuroscientists are to be believed, we're all pretty bad at thinking most of the time.

 

[arkirk]

This is epistemology. When it comes to things like sociology and economy I think it's impossible to sort out wishful thinking. I think it's better to accept that we're all victims of having rose tinted spectacles and a faulty fact filter, and do one's best to be humble about our opinions.

Yep. If the neuroscientists are to be believed, we're all pretty bad at thinking most of the time.

But do you agree that not everything that happens on this earth is beyond human understanding? If we just shake our heads and say..."My, we're bad thinkers and no thoughts deserve consideration because they may be generated behind rose colored glasses," how can we arrive at any social or environmental policy at all? I feel these things are moving targets anyway and require close attention, and that they are NOT entirely opaque issues.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yep. If the neuroscientists are to be believed, we're all pretty bad at thinking most of the time.

But do you agree that not everything that happens on this earth is beyond human understanding? If we just shake our heads and say..."My, we're bad thinkers and no thoughts deserve consideration because they may be generated behind rose colored glasses," how can we arrive at any social or environmental policy at all? I feel these things are moving targets anyway and require close attention, and that they are NOT entirely opaque issues.

I take Underseer as saying that a person who is a bad thinker doesn't know he's a bad thinker. We're talking Dunning Kruger.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you believe this because it is appeals to you, and you want to believe it? Is this your form of faith? Because, while it would be nice, I don't see any evidence to support what you are saying.

I believe Dr. Zoidberg could be right on this matter just on the basis of observation. I believe his logic is only an extension of what he has witnessed. For you to accuse him of being seduced by belief may be going too far. Perhaps you don't see these things because it has not be in the scope of YOUR EXPERIENCE. That makes what he says no less true.

What you wrote above is precisely what I hear from the religious telling me God exists.

My argument is a variant of Socrates Euthyphro dilemma. It's the same logic behind my argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

But you seem to be going considerably further. I agree that empathy and social contract and culture are all grounds for how people behave and what they feel is right and wrong, and I agree that they pick and choose from religious scripture to often cherry pick what they already agree with. But unless I am not understanding you, you seem to be saying that religion and holy text has no basis and no influence. Do you really think it doesn't matter what holy books say? As I asked before, if Islam was clearly against violence, pacifistic and anti-slavery, and tolerant of other beliefs and relgions, do you really think it would make no difference? If you do, I see no basis for that other than your hope that it is true.

 

[Bomb#20]

What is with your obsession with suicide bombers?

Asking questions that you dodge as hard as you can is not an obsession. You don't like the question because it destroys your delusion that it is religion, not politics, at the bottom of this.

Put people in the right circumstances and some will resort to violence. Attack and kill and torture Muslims nonstop for over a decade on a large scale, and go halfway around the world to do it, and you will create chaos and further violence, as we see.

So I ask again, why no American homegrown suicide bombers if Islam is the culprit and not circumstance?

<shrug> I expect Loren's answer is a big part of it. We don't have nearly as many Muslims here as the places with suicide bombers have. And the U.S. doesn't have European-style Muslim ghettos where it's easy to grow up surrounded by people who think slaughtering the infidel is a fine idea. Muslims here can't help being exposed to messages from the wider culture to the effect that targeting innocent bystanders is evil. Also, I wouldn't discount the consequences of the H-1B program. To a large extent we acquired our Muslim population by importing the best and brightest, rather than by bringing in anybody who had a cousin in the U.S. who had an American-born daughter he was willing to peddle.

Of course it produces a predictable outcome: it predictably pollutes and corrupts believers' minds, just like you said it does.

What that pollution does cannot be predicted. There is no predictable outcome from it.

Of course there is: you'll get a little of everything. There's no telling which passage a given individual will fasten onto; but statistically, having more passages praising X is likely to result in more believers taking X seriously.

But again, what can be predicted is that if you launch massive attacks of innocent people chaos will ensue and random violence will ensue, sometimes incredibly disturbing violence, like the violence from ISIS which the US is ultimately responsible for.

We launched massive attacks on innocent people in response to people in the middle east launching massive attacks on innocent people, and I don't see you blaming them for our predictable reaction. We might be responsible for ISIS -- we created a power vacuum in Iraq and we idiotically disbanded Saddam's military instead of co-opting it. On the other hand, the Syria meltdown was the result of a Tunisian street vendor setting himself on fire to protest oppression by local authorities; not seeing how that's our fault.

Yes. Exactly. When some people kill abortion doctors because they think God wants them to, that's Christianity's fault as well as the murderers' fault.

Here your error shines through. There is nothing in the Christian religion that instructs a person to kill people performing abortions.

So? Which part of "Gaussian curve" don't you understand? There's all manner of crap in the Christian religion to the effect that women in general and women's sexuality in particular only exist to be used and controlled by men. A woman getting an abortion is perceived as a woman taking charge of her own destiny and a woman having sex for her own pleasure. Men who've been trained by their religion to regard that sort of female independence as a challenge to their manhood are going to object to it; they're going to object to it to lesser or greater degrees; and the far out tail end of the distribution are going to take matters into their own hands, especially when they observe that the average center-of-the-curve violent suppressors of female sexual liberty -- i.e. the believers who limit themselves to voting for politicians who'll jail abortionists and get rid of sex education -- keep being outvoted by all those filthy little sluts and their no-doubt-Satan-influenced sympathizers.

Yes. Exactly. When some people kill apostates because they think God wants them to, that's Islam's fault as well as the murderers' fault.

This is a huge issue and a whole thread could be devoted to examining it.

But you have two sides. Some who say apostates should be killed, a tiny minority of Muslims, the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is a tiny minority, and some who say they shouldn't, the vast majority.

That's an extraordinary claim. Do you have evidence that those who think apostates should be killed are a tiny minority of Muslims?

Moreover, the Gaussian curve rules here too. All too often apologists for Islam talk as though every Muslim who isn't a full-blown Islamist must therefore be a liberal. But out of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't think apostates should be killed, how many do you think actually support religious freedom, and how many think the penalty should merely be imprisonment or whipping? The pollsters never seem to ask that question -- probably because execution is so much more dramatic and the Hadith does specify execution.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And Assad is not a Shi'ite, nor is he attempting to impose a Shi'ite interpretation of Islam on Syria. Indeed, the whole reason Iran backs Assad is because he is rabidly oppose to the kinds of Islamist movements that have been menacing Iran for the last two decades. In other words: Iran backs Assad as a check AGAINST Islamism.

You're treating Islamism as monolithic. It comes in multiple competing flavors.

And the "flavor" of Islamism that tastes like nationalism, smells like nationalism and even looks like nationalism is actually Islamism, just because Loren Pechtel -- without supporting evidence or even reasoning -- says so.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes. Exactly. When some people kill apostates because they think God wants them to, that's Islam's fault as well as the murderers' fault.

This is a huge issue and a whole thread could be devoted to examining it.

But you have two sides. Some who say apostates should be killed, a tiny minority of Muslims, the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is a tiny minority, and some who say they shouldn't, the vast majority.

That's an extraordinary claim. Do you have evidence that those who think apostates should be killed are a tiny minority of Muslims?

I don't know about a TINY minority, but it's not a majority population everywhere, not even among the 60 to 70% of Muslims who believe Sharia should be the law of the land (again, highs and lows in various countries).

I'm not really in the mood for a homework assignment right now, but I figure you could estimate the number of Muslims who actually believe in execution for apostates based on those figures and the populations of each country. I would guess between 30 and 45% in all countries; higher in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan, lower in places like Tunisia.

I suspect -- though I have almost no evidence for this -- that most Muslims answer such polls in the affirmative but would never have the balls to actually support or even implement such executions personally. It's kind of like how American Republicans are strongly against same sex marriage right up until one of their homosexual family members comes out of the closet; it's one of those "This is my moral stand against evil as long as it doesn't affect me personally."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't have a single muslim acquaintance. I would expect that if I did that person would be just like all my other acquaintances.

 

[Bomb#20]

Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed. The same research shows a robust support for religious pluralism, to the extent that actively supporting people with other religious beliefs is seen as an inherently good thing.

Since you actually read it, I take it you can actually quote it saying that.[/sarcasm] I actually read it too. It doesn't say that.

From the section 'Democracy and Religious Freedom'
...non-Muslims in their country are very free to practice their religion and consider this a good thing.

I note that the Median % here are some of the highest in the entire article.

But that's not the point in dispute! Are you seriously suggesting that the polled Muslims regard blasphemy, homosexuality and adultery by Christians and Buddhists as matters of their religious practice, rather than their general conduct? It's not as though church services require Christians to call Muhammad a pedophile bandit. Pakistan is infamous for prosecuting Christians for blasphemy against Islam; yet according to the Pew poll, 75% of Pakistani Muslims support the blasphemy laws, 75% believe Christians are very free to practice their religion, and 72% think that's a very good thing. So evidently most of them simply do not perceive any conflict between punishing Christians for blasphemy against Islam and leaving Christians free to practice their religion. When you ask a Pakistani Muslim if Christians can freely practice their religion, he's probably going to interpret that question in the obvious way: they're allowed to go to church, pray to Jesus, read the Bible, eat in the daytime during Ramadan, not pray toward Mecca five times a day, and so forth. This isn't bloody rocket science!

As far as apostasy goes, the numbers are decisive. An apostate, by definition, is not an adherent of the religion. But 84% of Pakistani Muslims want Sharia; 64% of those think it should apply to Muslims only; and 75% of them favor executing apostates. Those numbers are simply arithmetically inconsistent if the respondents meant Sharia should apply only to adherents of Islam. True, the authors of the Pew survey wrote "Across the regions where the question was asked, medians of at least 51% say sharia should apply exclusively to adherents of the Muslim faith.". But that's a gloss: it's an interpretation the authors made by reading the results through the lens of their own Western notions of religious freedom. What the respondents meant, evidently, was that Sharia should apply only to Muslims. We can tell, because the wording of the question is given:

"Should both Muslims and non-Muslims in our country be subject to sharia law, or should sharia law only be applied to Muslims?"​

There's nothing in the question about adherents. So evidently the respondents who want Sharia to apply only to Muslims and who want to execute apostates simply classify a former Muslim who's now a non-adherent of Islam as still a Muslim. (Many of those Pakistanis surely regard someone as a Muslim just for having one Muslim parent, even if he never in his life was an adherent of Islam -- that, after all, is the Sharia definition of a Muslim, and they want Sharia to be the law of the land.) In their minds that's all perfectly consistent with letting their neighbor who has two Christian parents go to church every Sunday unmolested. The authors wrote "adherents" because that's what "Muslim" means to Westerners; it was a mistake on their part to project their own definition of "Muslim" onto the respondents to their poll.

So no, you have no basis for claiming most Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality and adultery only within adherents of their own religion.

Moreover, let me draw your attention to the fact that Muslims are people too. If some Muslim only supports punishing blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, adultery and female disobedience when committed by Muslims, that does not make him a nonviolent person. That makes him a violent person who targets Muslims.

And noone is arguing that Muslims can't be violent. But I'm going to ask, again, if you have any evidence whatsoever that Muslims are any more violent than christians.

Why are you moving the goal posts? Where the heck am I supposed to have claimed Muslims are more violent than Christians? Christianity is a violence-inducing religion too. And it is of course perfectly possible that on average Muslims are more prone to religious violence than Christians but Christians are more prone to drunken violence than Muslims and it all evens out. If you have evidence that what I said is wrong, present it. If you just want me to have to try to prove whatever random claims you feel you'll get a propaganda advantage out of challenging your opponents to prove, sell that to somebody else.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes. Exactly. When some people kill apostates because they think God wants them to, that's Islam's fault as well as the murderers' fault.

This is a huge issue and a whole thread could be devoted to examining it.

But you have two sides. Some who say apostates should be killed, a tiny minority of Muslims, the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is a tiny minority, and some who say they shouldn't, the vast majority.

That's an extraordinary claim. Do you have evidence that those who think apostates should be killed are a tiny minority of Muslims?

I don't know about a TINY minority, but it's not a majority population everywhere, not even among the 60 to 70% of Muslims who believe Sharia should be the law of the land (again, highs and lows in various countries).

I'm not really in the mood for a homework assignment right now, but I figure you could estimate the number of Muslims who actually believe in execution for apostates based on those figures and the populations of each country. I would guess between 30 and 45% in all countries; higher in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan, lower in places like Tunisia.

Yeah, that sounds ballpark. And the hypothesis that the circumstance that they're taught Muhammad was always right, the circumstance that they're taught that Muhammad said the things al-Bukhari said Muhammad said, and the circumstance that they're taught al-Bukhari said Muhammad said to kill people who leave the religion, is a coincidence entirely unrelated to 30-45% of Muslims favoring killing people who leave the religion, is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is epistemology. When it comes to things like sociology and economy I think it's impossible to sort out wishful thinking. I think it's better to accept that we're all victims of having rose tinted spectacles and a faulty fact filter, and do one's best to be humble about our opinions.

Certainly. But there are things we can bank on. Concerning Muslims and violence, or any group and violence, if their religion incorporates violence it certainly didn't just drop from the sky one day. It can only be fact that cultural violence was incorporated into the religion. I don't see how it can be any other way. Aspects of religion are reflections of the greater culture, its tendencies and practices.

First off, neither the Bible or the Koran is especially violent. Sure, there are a lot of violent passages and highly questionable morals in both of them. But they both yammer on about the importance of forgiveness and that it's always best to forgive. They both make the argument that even if violence can be morally justified it's still always preferable to forgive.

As far comparisons between the Bible and the Quran. It seems a pretty even race to me. I think they're both about as violent. If we make the claim that the Quran makes people violent we also have to explain why the Bible doesn't make Christians as violent.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html

And lastly, the fact that both the Quran both has passages promoting violence and forgiveness is because humans are sometimes violent and sometimes forgiving. I think it's human nature. Both the Quran and the Bible are human products who clearly resonate among large numbers of humans. Ergo both the Bible and the Quran contain thoughts and emotions already contained in the population. Those among us who are violent find the violent passages. Those who are forgiving find the other ones. If we see it this way then neither book makes people do shit. The books are merely mirrors of humanity.

edit:
The above is also an answer to the below post. So I just stuck in in here.

But you seem to be going considerably further. I agree that empathy and social contract and culture are all grounds for how people behave and what they feel is right and wrong, and I agree that they pick and choose from religious scripture to often cherry pick what they already agree with. But unless I am not understanding you, you seem to be saying that religion and holy text has no basis and no influence. Do you really think it doesn't matter what holy books say? As I asked before, if Islam was clearly against violence, pacifistic and anti-slavery, and tolerant of other beliefs and relgions, do you really think it would make no difference? If you do, I see no basis for that other than your hope that it is true.

 

[Underseer]

Yep. If the neuroscientists are to be believed, we're all pretty bad at thinking most of the time.

But do you agree that not everything that happens on this earth is beyond human understanding? If we just shake our heads and say..."My, we're bad thinkers and no thoughts deserve consideration because they may be generated behind rose colored glasses," how can we arrive at any social or environmental policy at all? I feel these things are moving targets anyway and require close attention, and that they are NOT entirely opaque issues.

Of course I am not saying that.

I simply meant it as a warning, because many in the atheist community have gotten this idea in their heads that we are somehow immune from sloppy thinking and bad logic just because we're atheists. Even if we generally make better arguments on certain topics, we still shouldn't let our collective guard down. On these forums you will find plenty of examples of fellow atheists making unbelievably bad arguments on other topics.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes. Exactly. When some people kill apostates because they think God wants them to, that's Islam's fault as well as the murderers' fault.

This is a huge issue and a whole thread could be devoted to examining it.

But you have two sides. Some who say apostates should be killed, a tiny minority of Muslims, the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is a tiny minority, and some who say they shouldn't, the vast majority.

That's an extraordinary claim. Do you have evidence that those who think apostates should be killed are a tiny minority of Muslims?

I don't know about a TINY minority, but it's not a majority population everywhere, not even among the 60 to 70% of Muslims who believe Sharia should be the law of the land (again, highs and lows in various countries).

I'm not really in the mood for a homework assignment right now, but I figure you could estimate the number of Muslims who actually believe in execution for apostates based on those figures and the populations of each country. I would guess between 30 and 45% in all countries; higher in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan, lower in places like Tunisia.

Yeah, that sounds ballpark. And the hypothesis that the circumstance that they're taught Muhammad was always right, the circumstance that they're taught that Muhammad said the things al-Bukhari said Muhammad said, and the circumstance that they're taught al-Bukhari said Muhammad said to kill people who leave the religion, is a coincidence entirely unrelated to 30-45% of Muslims favoring killing people who leave the religion, is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

I would agree, with the caveat that it's very easy to hold a conviction when you never encounter anything that forces you to challenge it. I suspect the reason the percentage is higher in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan is because genuine apostasy -- classically defined, converting to a religion other than Islam -- is exceedingly rare, and so most people agree with the law in general principle. Countries like Tunisia or Malaysia that have larger non-Muslim minorities have a larger instance of conversion and therefore less support for the execution of apostates: even among Muslims, most would rather live peacefully with their non/ex-Muslim neighbors than cause hardship for them and their families.

Obligatory mention that this is the basic feature of belief in God in the first place. It's very easy to believe that your holy book is absolutely correct and infallible when you live in a world where you will never actually encounter God and learn how accurate or inaccurate the book really is. It is a feature of religious people I have always found infuriating: the less they know, the righter they think they are.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

First off, neither the Bible or the Koran is especially violent. Sure, there are a lot of violent passages and highly questionable morals in both of them. But they both yammer on about the importance of forgiveness and that it's always best to forgive. They both make the argument that even if violence can be morally justified it's still always preferable to forgive.

Where are you getting this from in the Quran? Do you have some of the Quran that you can quote to us? Is there a part that says something like "If somebody blasphemes Allah or his Prophet, do not harm to him, but turn the other cheek"? If there is, then that part of the Quran needs very badly to be highlighted right now in the face of the militant Muslims.

As your link notes, the Bible is a much bigger book, so there is more you can pick from in there. Your link also says that if you take size into consideration, the Quran is twice as violent. The Bible also contains the example of Jesus himself saying things like "turn the other cheek", and the most violent Jesus himself gets in the story is his temper tantrum in the temple. Mohammed was a warlord who led battles and killed many. For that reason, amongst others, Islam may be harder to tame than Christianity.

To say it is all culture, poverty, western actions etc, and that the Quran and Islam itself has nothing to do with it, appears to be an entirely faith based position. It would be nice if it was true, but is it actually? It could be that the only way to tame Islam is to get Muslims to read less of their holy text and become less attached to it and Mohammed, ie, wean them off Islam.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

First off, neither the Bible or the Koran is especially violent. Sure, there are a lot of violent passages and highly questionable morals in both of them. But they both yammer on about the importance of forgiveness and that it's always best to forgive. They both make the argument that even if violence can be morally justified it's still always preferable to forgive.

Where are you getting this from in the Quran? Do you have some of the Quran that you can quote to us? Is there a part that says something like "If somebody blasphemes Allah or his Prophet, do not harm to him, but turn the other cheek"? If there is, then that part of the Quran needs very badly to be highlighted right now in the face of the militant Muslims.

First of all, the Quran and the Hadith are two VERY different things. There ARE passages in the Quran that call for forebearance of apostasy, and there are EXPLICIT calls for tolerance of Christians and Jews. The Hadith diverges from this, but the situational context is different from passage to passage and is not always preserved when quoted.

Second of all, it would be a waste of time to highlight those passages in the face of "the militant Muslims" because most extremists don't actually read the Quran. This is as true as Muslims as it is for Christians: in the latter case, we have a book that EXPLICITLY calls for forgiveness of sins and for peace and understanding towards all people; this same book spawned Christian thinkers to view the Spanish Inquisition and the Witch's Hammer as perfectly acceptable forms of religious expression.

Interestingly, the Quran even contains explicit warnings about people who "raise a Mosque for mischief" rather than for submission. This, IMO, is probably the most heavily ignored verse in the entire book these days, not unlike the Bible's "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"

As your link notes, the Bible is a much bigger book, so there is more you can pick from in there. Your link also says that if you take size into consideration, the Quran is twice as violent.

I take issue with that. The Quran has more individual references to violence, but fewer references to violence actually being done. The Old Testament, in particular, has far more stories of the Hebrews deliberately butchering their enemies -- soldiers, women, children and cattle -- on flimsy if not totally false provocations. Most of the Quran's most violent passages quote Muhammed telling his followers "Those guys threw you out? Go back over there and kick their asses!"

It's also interesting to note that according to every Muslim I have ever talked to, the crowning achievement in Muhammed's military career was when he returned to Mecca and conquered it without killing anyone in it. The implication is that Muhammed used a combination of cleverness and overwhelming superiority to force the Meccans to surrender, thereby capturing the town and its inhabitants intact. In the minds of such people, Muhammed is revered not for his adherence to violence or intolerance of others, but for his leadership and wisdom and his ability to dominate his enemies and overcome all forms of opposition.

Basically, the same reason Americans worship their assorted war heroes.

The Bible also contains the example of Jesus himself saying things like "turn the other cheek", and the most violent Jesus himself gets in the story is his temper tantrum in the temple. Mohammed was a warlord who led battles and killed many.

So were almost all of the old testament kings and prophets. If anything, Islam is on par with Judaism in terms of violence and the glorification thereof, except that Islam only has a SINGLE prophet glorifying violence while Judaism has several.

To say it is all culture, poverty, western actions etc, and that the Quran and Islam itself has nothing to do with it, appears to be an entirely faith based position.

Oh no, the Quran has ALOT to do with it, being a highly central aspect of Islamic culture. It's just the Quran itself is not a necessary factor for the kind of violence outbursts we have been seeing, nor is Islam itself sufficient. Islamic teachings are a contributing factor in the SHAPE of that reaction, but at the end of the day it is a REACTION more than anything else.

The question is, a reaction to what? It's 1400 years too late to argue that it's a reaction to the rise of Islamic teachings, but a lot of other things have happened in recent history that are more likely to be causal factors.

It could be that the only way to tame Islam is to get Muslims to read less of their holy text and become less attached to it and Mohammed, ie, wean them off Islam.

It's not, though. The only way to tame Islam is, in fact, to tame Muslims as a group. There are historical, social, political and economic reasons that also need to be considered, a combination of which are quite literally driving huge groups of Muslims insane. Rampant poverty and disenfranchisement are the oft-cited cliches, but until they and other factors are resolved they will REMAIN highly relevant. The simple fact of the matter is, Muslims for the most part do not resort to violence when they live comfortable and productive lives; even Christians will do that when you subject them to the kind of deprivation that Muslims have been putting up with for the past hundred years (which, in fact, they DID in Northern Ireland).

 

[TSwizzle]

Second of all, it would be a waste of time to highlight those passages in the face of "the militant Muslims" because most extremists don't actually read the Quran.

How do you know "most extremists" don't read the quran ?

 

[DrZoidberg]

First off, neither the Bible or the Koran is especially violent. Sure, there are a lot of violent passages and highly questionable morals in both of them. But they both yammer on about the importance of forgiveness and that it's always best to forgive. They both make the argument that even if violence can be morally justified it's still always preferable to forgive.

Where are you getting this from in the Quran? Do you have some of the Quran that you can quote to us? Is there a part that says something like "If somebody blasphemes Allah or his Prophet, do not harm to him, but turn the other cheek"? If there is, then that part of the Quran needs very badly to be highlighted right now in the face of the militant Muslims.

As your link notes, the Bible is a much bigger book, so there is more you can pick from in there. Your link also says that if you take size into consideration, the Quran is twice as violent. The Bible also contains the example of Jesus himself saying things like "turn the other cheek", and the most violent Jesus himself gets in the story is his temper tantrum in the temple. Mohammed was a warlord who led battles and killed many. For that reason, amongst others, Islam may be harder to tame than Christianity.

To say it is all culture, poverty, western actions etc, and that the Quran and Islam itself has nothing to do with it, appears to be an entirely faith based position. It would be nice if it was true, but is it actually? It could be that the only way to tame Islam is to get Muslims to read less of their holy text and become less attached to it and Mohammed, ie, wean them off Islam.

I see you failed to click on the link provided. It would have answered all of these questions.

 

[dismal]

Well, who says muslims are violent...

Note their most prestigious centre of learning condemns the violent acts of IS:

Top Muslim body calls for 'killing, crucifixion' of IS militants
Cairo (AFP) - Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's most prestigious centre of learning, expressed outrage at the Islamic State group for burning to death a captive Jordanian pilot, saying its militants deserve to be killed or crucified.

http://news.yahoo.com/top-muslim-body-calls-killing-crucifixion-terrorists-100659379.html

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

First of all, the Quran and the Hadith are two VERY different things. There ARE passages in the Quran that call for forebearance of apostasy, and there are EXPLICIT calls for tolerance of Christians and Jews. The Hadith diverges from this, but the situational context is different from passage to passage and is not always preserved when quoted.

Key words "Christians and Jews", people of the book. That leaves out most of us. Where in the Quran does it say to be kind and loving towards all of humanity, to not kill apostates, etc? Is that in there?

Second of all, it would be a waste of time to highlight those passages in the face of "the militant Muslims" because most extremists don't actually read the Quran.

What is your evidence for this claim? Every Muslim I have spoken for that veers towards the radical quotes the Quran at me, and go out of their way to call the others not Muslim enough.

This is as true as Muslims as it is for Christians: in the latter case, we have a book that EXPLICITLY calls for forgiveness of sins and for peace and understanding towards all people

That is the Bible. Where is it in the Quran? Perhaps I am overlooking it?

this same book spawned Christian thinkers to view the Spanish Inquisition and the Witch's Hammer as perfectly acceptable forms of religious expression.

I don't dispute that people pick and choose from these books. My point is that the Christians seem to have more good parts to pick from. Or can you point me to the same in the Quran? I know it says to do charity (to fellow Muslims) and to not do usury. That is the best I can say for it from what I have read.

It's also interesting to note that according to every Muslim I have ever talked to, the crowning achievement in Muhammed's military career was when he returned to Mecca and conquered it without killing anyone in it. The implication is that Muhammed used a combination of cleverness and overwhelming superiority to force the Meccans to surrender, thereby capturing the town and its inhabitants intact. In the minds of such people, Muhammed is revered not for his adherence to violence or intolerance of others, but for his leadership and wisdom and his ability to dominate his enemies and overcome all forms of opposition.

That is still a call for dominance. And he was still a warlord. If anything, that calls for asking nicely first, and taking by force if that doesn't work.

Oh no, the Quran has ALOT to do with it, being a highly central aspect of Islamic culture. It's just the Quran itself is not a necessary factor for the kind of violence outbursts we have been seeing, nor is Islam itself sufficient. Islamic teachings are a contributing factor in the SHAPE of that reaction, but at the end of the day it is a REACTION more than anything else.

Sure. I agree with that. My point is that Islam and what is written in their Holy Book and what their Imams preach DOES matter. The claim above appeared to be that it doesn't. Muslims are going to be more prone to violence than pacifist Jains.

It's not, though. The only way to tame Islam is, in fact, to tame Muslims as a group. There are historical, social, political and economic reasons that also need to be considered, a combination of which are quite literally driving huge groups of Muslims insane. Rampant poverty and disenfranchisement are the oft-cited cliches, but until they and other factors are resolved they will REMAIN highly relevant. The simple fact of the matter is, Muslims for the most part do not resort to violence when they live comfortable and productive lives

I'm not so sure about that. If I recall correctly the 9/11 hijackers were not living in rampant poverty. Osama Bin Laden had money. I don't know if the guy that killed Theo Van Gogh or the Charlie Hebdo attackers were living in squalor, but I see no reason to think that they were. There is a view within Islam that Mohammed is holy and that to blaspheme deserves a brutal murder. You don't need to live in dire conditions to buy into that.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are you getting this from in the Quran? Do you have some of the Quran that you can quote to us? Is there a part that says something like "If somebody blasphemes Allah or his Prophet, do not harm to him, but turn the other cheek"? If there is, then that part of the Quran needs very badly to be highlighted right now in the face of the militant Muslims.

As your link notes, the Bible is a much bigger book, so there is more you can pick from in there. Your link also says that if you take size into consideration, the Quran is twice as violent. The Bible also contains the example of Jesus himself saying things like "turn the other cheek", and the most violent Jesus himself gets in the story is his temper tantrum in the temple. Mohammed was a warlord who led battles and killed many. For that reason, amongst others, Islam may be harder to tame than Christianity.

To say it is all culture, poverty, western actions etc, and that the Quran and Islam itself has nothing to do with it, appears to be an entirely faith based position. It would be nice if it was true, but is it actually? It could be that the only way to tame Islam is to get Muslims to read less of their holy text and become less attached to it and Mohammed, ie, wean them off Islam.

I see you failed to click on the link provided. It would have answered all of these questions.

Which Link? The one you gave to skeptic's annotated bible? It doesn't answer the above.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Second of all, it would be a waste of time to highlight those passages in the face of "the militant Muslims" because most extremists don't actually read the Quran.

How do you know "most extremists" don't read the quran ?

For one thing, an alarmingly high number of militant Muslims -- especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan -- cannot read PERIOD.