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

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't discount sexual frustration as a source of increased tendency to violence. Polygamy doesn't just mean that some men can have multiple wives. It also means that some young and poor males have no chance to marry, because there aren't enough women to go around.

That's a misunderstanding of how polygamy works in those societies who practice polygamy. This we can put in the category of not a problem. In reality it's strictly policed through customs rather than law. So even though a man can legally have a bunch of wives there´s quite a few hoops to jump through. In practice nearly all Muslim men can only have one wife. Only tribal chiefs and aristocrats have more than one wife. Typically Muslim women insist upon an added clause to their marriage contract that prohibits their husband from getting a second wife. It's a checkbox to check. It's standard.

There are legal restrictions worth considering if you do want more than one wife, even when you're allowed to. Basically, unless you are pretty wealthy, ie rich, don't even bother. You need to provide for them amply and make sure they have identical standards of living. Or she can divorce her husband. For example Saudi Arabia. Divorce law in Saudi Arabia makes it hard for women to divorce their husband. But if she manages to do that then he is bound by law, for the rest of his and her life, to provide for her. Even though they are divorced. That's something to consider before getting a second wife. All this requires ample funds.

So Islamic law, albeit medieval and retarded, isn't pure evil. A divorced man has zero rights over his ex-wife. Only duties. So a man does best to avoid that situation at all cost. Which means not giving her any reason to be jealous of his other wives.

Every second wife around means a man without a wife. Just because it's a small percent doesn't mean it's not a problem.

I strongly suspect sex-selective behaviors have more to do with the problem than polygamy, though.

 

[bilby]

Lack of usable skills is also a major issue. The Middle East is full of well paid engineers, not just in the oil industry, but building roads, airports, skyscrapers, and all manner of modern infrastructure. But the vast majority of them are foreigners - English and American engineers attracted by the high, tax free, incomes.

Those jobs are not done by locals, because learning the Koran by rote turns out not to be a solid grounding for an engineering degree course at a reputable university.

It must be pretty demoralising for a smart kid to get to the age of sixteen and discover that in the modern world, the phrase "everything a man needs to know he can find in scripture" carries the postscript "as long as you don't mind only ever doing menial work".

A similar problem is brewing in the US Bible Belt, although so far the useless products of a Christian "education" are generally few enough that the churches themselves, and the Republican Party apparatus, can soak up a large fraction of them.

Once the deadweight of intelligent young men who know nothing useful reaches a certain concentration, trouble becomes inevitable.

 

[TSwizzle]

Every second wife around means a man without a wife. Just because it's a small percent doesn't mean it's not a problem.

There should be plenty women to go round as so many males are lost fighting teh jihad and blowing themselves up. Plus the inventory of women is boosted with taking slaves. Mind you, on the female side of the ledger there may be a shortage due honor killings.

 

[freshie23]

The Quran is very similar to the Bible, so no I don't think so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The Quran is very similar to the Bible, so no I don't think so.

Because nobody's ever done anything violent because of something the Bible said.

 

[freshie23]

The Quran is very similar to the Bible, so no I don't think so.

Because nobody's ever done anything violent because of something the Bible said.

You basically just called me an idiot, but moving forward.

Religion's just the excuse for violence, not the cause. Christians used theirs to defend american slavery. Terrorists desperate for power & recognition used theirs to rationalize 9/11: "sacrificing" their own lives to commit mass murder in the most powerful country in the world. Etc etc etc

 

[none]

Because nobody's ever done anything violent because of something the Bible said.

You basically just called me an idiot, but moving forward.

Religion's just the excuse for violence, not the cause. Christians used theirs to defend american slavery. Terrorists desperate for power & recognition used theirs to rationalize 9/11: "sacrificing" their own lives to commit mass murder in the most powerful country in the world. Etc etc etc

all because they perceived the US as interfering with Muslim affairs..like Islamic theocracies??
don't know much about Buddhism but I only imagine there is an in group out group depiction in it, could be wrong.
there is a clause in Christianity for killing non believers too.

 

[bilby]

Because nobody's ever done anything violent because of something the Bible said.

You basically just called me an idiot, but moving forward.

He really didn't, you know. He just pointed out that your statement was idiotic.

Religion's just the excuse for violence, not the cause. Christians used theirs to defend american slavery. Terrorists desperate for power & recognition used theirs to rationalize 9/11: "sacrificing" their own lives to commit mass murder in the most powerful country in the world. Etc etc etc

If religion is the cause of violence, then we should probably try to get rid of it; But if, on the other hand, you are right, and religion is not the cause of, but merely an excuse for, violence, then we should probably try to get rid of it.

I agree completely with you, that any belief system that can be used to defend slavery and terrorism is valueless as a moral guide, and that we would obviously be better off without it. However I am unconvinced that religion is not also a causative factor in violence, as well as an excuse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's a misunderstanding of how polygamy works in those societies who practice polygamy. This we can put in the category of not a problem. In reality it's strictly policed through customs rather than law. So even though a man can legally have a bunch of wives there´s quite a few hoops to jump through. In practice nearly all Muslim men can only have one wife. Only tribal chiefs and aristocrats have more than one wife. Typically Muslim women insist upon an added clause to their marriage contract that prohibits their husband from getting a second wife. It's a checkbox to check. It's standard.

There are legal restrictions worth considering if you do want more than one wife, even when you're allowed to. Basically, unless you are pretty wealthy, ie rich, don't even bother. You need to provide for them amply and make sure they have identical standards of living. Or she can divorce her husband. For example Saudi Arabia. Divorce law in Saudi Arabia makes it hard for women to divorce their husband. But if she manages to do that then he is bound by law, for the rest of his and her life, to provide for her. Even though they are divorced. That's something to consider before getting a second wife. All this requires ample funds.

So Islamic law, albeit medieval and retarded, isn't pure evil. A divorced man has zero rights over his ex-wife. Only duties. So a man does best to avoid that situation at all cost. Which means not giving her any reason to be jealous of his other wives.

Every second wife around means a man without a wife. Just because it's a small percent doesn't mean it's not a problem.

I strongly suspect sex-selective behaviors have more to do with the problem than polygamy, though.

There's loads of both women and men who die virgins in he west. More men than women. That would mean that a little polygamy would be required just to fix that skewed statistic.

Relationships aren't for life nor should faithfulness be assumed. The fact that two people are married does NOT mean that infidelity isn't happening. Marriage is just about having a shared household. It tells you nothing about the sexual dynamics of that relationship, nor it's relative sexual openness. So large numbers of polygamous marriages doesn't at all mean that women and men aren't all sleeping around with each other any less than with low numbers of polygamous marriages. I assume there's human biology that sees to it so that those numbers are fairly constant.

The only real factor for how much people sleep around seems to be wealth. The richer we are the sluttier we are. Marriage laws seem to be irrelevant as far as our sexual behaviour goes. A speculation could be that rich people are healthier and therefore more attractive, and the rest is biology.

In the polyamory world there are triads that have been going strong for 20 or 40 years. Somebody very close to me has two boyfriends. One of them she's had for 20 years, the other 5. They're all now happily living together in the same house. What that tells us is that people are going to do what they're going to do, regardless of some things legality. These three people don't give a rats ass that polyandry is illegal in Sweden. Not a single hoot. The same of course applies to polygamy.

 

[ronburgundy]

The Bible and the Quaran both advance values and ideas that promote, enable, and justify violence more than arguably any other texts ever written, including Mien Kampf.

But the ideas in texts do not magically manifest as human actions. There are many mediating and moderating factors that determine the degree of impact.

The Koran and the Bible both were intended to and do promote aggressive intolerance, unreason, and authoritarianism. But many societal and historical factors outside those texts determine if those ideas are conveyed, accepted, and then acted upon by individuals, and if so, how. Also, keep in mind that many more Muslims (of no immediate threat to the West) have been killed by western Christians in our military (and corporate "helpers"), then the reverse. Whether such killings are "terrorism" proper doesn't change that they are killings of infidels and often in the minds of the soldiers justified because they are infidels. Fundy Christians are way over-represented in the military in among the hawks that support its proactive and more aggressive use (except when commanded by a black POTUS who these hawks want dead even more than the brown people being killed by the military). To simply excuse this as "following orders" is bogus. They willingly sign up, often because they know the orders are to kill these people, and they often go beyond their orders in who and how much they kill, and how inhumanely they treat those they don't kill.
The particular method of the violence (terrorism or "traditional" military action) is not determined by any difference in religious ethics, but by the logistics and which one is actually available to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Relationships aren't for life nor should faithfulness be assumed. The fact that two people are married does NOT mean that infidelity isn't happening. Marriage is just about having a shared household. It tells you nothing about the sexual dynamics of that relationship, nor it's relative sexual openness. So large numbers of polygamous marriages doesn't at all mean that women and men aren't all sleeping around with each other any less than with low numbers of polygamous marriages. I assume there's human biology that sees to it so that those numbers are fairly constant.

It's much harder for a woman to be unfaithful in strongly Islamic countries. They simply don't have much opportunity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Relationships aren't for life nor should faithfulness be assumed. The fact that two people are married does NOT mean that infidelity isn't happening. Marriage is just about having a shared household. It tells you nothing about the sexual dynamics of that relationship, nor it's relative sexual openness. So large numbers of polygamous marriages doesn't at all mean that women and men aren't all sleeping around with each other any less than with low numbers of polygamous marriages. I assume there's human biology that sees to it so that those numbers are fairly constant.

It's much harder for a woman to be unfaithful in strongly Islamic countries. They simply don't have much opportunity.

If there's a will there's a way. I spent a day in Berlin with a bunch of Saudi gay activists. The fact that being gay was illegal and punishable by death didn't as much as dent the Saudi gay scene. It was alive and well and swinging. They convinced me that regulating consensual sex is a waste of time. Any consensual sex. Any law that tries to regulate who engages in what sexual behaviour will be a waste of time. All it will do, at best, is make people have sex with less attractive people than they otherwise would in a more "free market" and take stupid risks. But that's about it. Sex is a much too strong instinct for us to be able to stop it. It can be channelled into less destructive behaviours. But never stopped. Regulating sex is like designing to spread STDs and unwanted pregnancies.