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

[dismal]

Pre-reformation Christianity was about as evil as Islam is today.

The Kamikaze pilots did it out of nationalism, not religion.

I believe it was post reformation Christians dropping atom bombs. What are you talking about?
It was post reformation Christians fire bombing Hamburg, Dresden, Baghdad, etc.

The connection between those things and Christianity is tenuous.

It would be more accurate to say those things were done by Democrats.

 

[Nexus]

If Islam has little to no effect on affecting how people act, why do we see such different behavior and attitudes from from Hindi in India compared to Muslims. Or why do the Muslims in the Philippines act different than the rest of the population. Its ridiculous to assert a doctrine and set of beliefs doesn't affect people taught and immersed in those beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

If Islam has little to no effect on affecting how people act, why do we see such different behavior and attitudes from from Hindi in India compared to Muslims. Or why do the Muslims in the Philippines act different than the rest of the population. Its ridiculous to assert a doctrine and set of beliefs doesn't affect people taught and immersed in those beliefs.

The way a person behaves is related to their entire culture, their entire upbringing, not just their religion.

Religion is just a part of the picture.

And I doubt you could tell if a person, even a Filipino, was Muslim just by observing their behavior.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pre-reformation Christianity was about as evil as Islam is today.

The Kamikaze pilots did it out of nationalism, not religion.

I believe it was post reformation Christians dropping atom bombs. What are you talking about?
It was post reformation Christians fire bombing Hamburg, Dresden, Baghdad, etc.

I'm talking about actions done for religious reasons.

Whatever you think of these actions they weren't done because of religion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Does the Lords Resistance army justify itself with the bible? Do they quote and push scripture the way that Muslim terrorist groups do?

Since they're a Christian militia, with their core identity is Christian, I's say that's beyond question. Historically Christians have had no problems cherry picking the Bible. They did that during the Rwanda genocide. Hitler and Goebels often quoted the Bible to justify all their shennanigens. The same goes for the KKK.

Also, according to the Koran suicide bombers go straight to hell. You really need to interpret it creatively to get away with it. And there's no shortage of Islamic suicide bombers.

All people seem to just see whatever in their religious texts. I really can't see any meaningful difference between Islam and Christianity in this regard

- - - Updated - - -

View attachment 2029

Hey, guys... guys. I found the missing link. Evilutionists = win

 

[DrZoidberg]

If Islam has little to no effect on affecting how people act, why do we see such different behavior and attitudes from from Hindi in India compared to Muslims. Or why do the Muslims in the Philippines act different than the rest of the population. Its ridiculous to assert a doctrine and set of beliefs doesn't affect people taught and immersed in those beliefs.

India was a complete fucking blood bath during indipendence. All nominally motivated by religion. Hindus were just as bad as Muslims. I think this conception is simply down to media not reporting on Hindu atrocities. Hinduism is a lot more complex religion than.... well... any other. It has an extremely wide span of ideas. It doesn't make for easy to digest news pieces in the west.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Koran goes on and on about the importance to forgive instead of taking revenge. I think the only Sura that really goes overboard is the bit about killing is the only on Arab peninsula Pagans. But that's a demographic that is since long wiped out.

I'm not really in a good spot here to search. But I remember reading the bit about adultery. Both parties should be stoned to death unless they repent, apologise and promise not to do it again, in which case they're let off free with zero punishment. The Sharia interprets this as = death always. Which is the exact opposite of what the text actually reads.

Both the Koran and the Bible is very explicit on the fact that humans shouldn't pass judgement on other humans. This is for God to do. Which effectively should put all terrorists out of business. Also, Jihad is mainly about building communal public works. Not war. There's so much in the Koran that is simply ignored by violent Muslims.

Does the Koran say to forgive the infidels and those who blaspheme the prophet?

Actually yes. It goes on and on about forgiveness. It says that it's always preferable to forgive.

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Articles/17230/verses-of-the-qur’an-about

The biggest difference I can see is that Christianity teaches to never oppose people in power. Just to lie flat and take it. The Koran teaches that violence and resistance can sometimes be justified. I'd say that's a point to Islam. The world will not become a better place by letting tyrants run free and unmolested. Both religions are aggressive about spreading the faith. Which is what rulers have been able to use as justifications for war in all ages. Even though neither book sanctions the use of force to get converts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The British Empire frequently stoked hostile feelings between different groups under their control, so as to weaken them. This has been blamed for a variety of problems today, most prominently the bloody division of India and Pakistan. It would not surprise me to see this also among other regions they controlled. Nigeria for example, might be a significant place to consider.

I am not as familiar with French colonialism, but it would also not surprise me if they used similar tactics.

The British Empire went from initially very liberal (18'th century Enlightenment ideals) and then toward the end of the 19'th century became extremely racist, bigoted and religiously intolerant. This was all due to social trends in England itself. And like a resonance box whatever the British parliament ruled it had an amplified more extreme interpretation in the colonies. So the correct answer is that the British Empire was both on the extreme ends of liberalism and intolerance, depending on what time period you look at.

It is interesting how Evangelical Christianity was aggressively promoted in India in the end of the 19'th century in a way that wasn't making the British government any friends. It's like they were going out of their way to humiliate and provoke their Indian subjects as much as possible. For no benefit to England. In hindsight it was a completely pointless provocation and did prove to make India a hell of a lot less stable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is Saudi Arabia a pure expression of Islam?

Much like communists they will say that Mao'z China or Stalin's USSR were not really communist.

The Saudi royal family has for hundreds of years been intimately connected with the extremist form of Islam called Wahhabism. He can't for various ideological reasons start backing any other type of Islam.

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

It was just unlucky that it was this family who got power in Saudi Arabia. Remember that when Saud took power in Saudi Arabia he got the land that was worthless. The land that was actually useful is all the other countries on the peninsula (Yemen, Kuwait, Oman, Arab Emirates). Obviously the most extreme Islamic faction is going to fight the hardest for control over Mecka, in an otherwise worthless geographical location. But then they found oil, and everything changed.

Historically the Islamic world has spent plenty of time and energy trying to prevent this type of Islam from spreading.

 

[bilby]

The British Empire frequently stoked hostile feelings between different groups under their control, so as to weaken them. This has been blamed for a variety of problems today, most prominently the bloody division of India and Pakistan. It would not surprise me to see this also among other regions they controlled. Nigeria for example, might be a significant place to consider.

I am not as familiar with French colonialism, but it would also not surprise me if they used similar tactics.

The British Empire went from initially very liberal (18'th century Enlightenment ideals) and then toward the end of the 19'th century became extremely racist, bigoted and religiously intolerant. This was all due to social trends in England itself. And like a resonance box whatever the British parliament ruled it had an amplified more extreme interpretation in the colonies. So the correct answer is that the British Empire was both on the extreme ends of liberalism and intolerance, depending on what time period you look at.

It is interesting how Evangelical Christianity was aggressively promoted in India in the end of the 19'th century in a way that wasn't making the British government any friends. It's like they were going out of their way to humiliate and provoke their Indian subjects as much as possible. For no benefit to England. In hindsight it was a completely pointless provocation and did prove to make India a hell of a lot less stable.

When the world's most wealthy and powerful nation is run by religious evangelists, there is a vicious circle that emerges whereby the folks at home have wealth and power as clear evidence that they are favoured by God; and so they feel totally justified in comitting any atrocities they feel will further empower or enrich them, as long as those atrocities are done half a world away, so that the folks back home can maintain the illusion that they are a force for good in the world.

Eventually though, you piss off enough of the world with your moralising crusade that is in stark contrast to your immoral behaviour, that the foreigners increasingly seek to do violence against you; which comes as a shock, as it flies in the face of your belief that you are a shining beacon of virtue in a harsh and cruel world.

You invade nations that have materials you want for your economy, and find that, surprisingly, the inhabitants do not greet you as liberators, and instead revolt against your misrule.

Of course, that sort of thing only happened to the British Empire in the 19th century. It wouldn't happen again, would it?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The British Empire went from initially very liberal (18'th century Enlightenment ideals) and then toward the end of the 19'th century became extremely racist, bigoted and religiously intolerant. This was all due to social trends in England itself. And like a resonance box whatever the British parliament ruled it had an amplified more extreme interpretation in the colonies. So the correct answer is that the British Empire was both on the extreme ends of liberalism and intolerance, depending on what time period you look at.

It is interesting how Evangelical Christianity was aggressively promoted in India in the end of the 19'th century in a way that wasn't making the British government any friends. It's like they were going out of their way to humiliate and provoke their Indian subjects as much as possible. For no benefit to England. In hindsight it was a completely pointless provocation and did prove to make India a hell of a lot less stable.

When the world's most wealthy and powerful nation is run by religious evangelists, there is a vicious circle that emerges whereby the folks at home have wealth and power as clear evidence that they are favoured by God; and so they feel totally justified in comitting any atrocities they feel will further empower or enrich them, as long as those atrocities are done half a world away, so that the folks back home can maintain the illusion that they are a force for good in the world.

Eventually though, you piss off enough of the world with your moralising crusade that is in stark contrast to your immoral behaviour, that the foreigners increasingly seek to do violence against you; which comes as a shock, as it flies in the face of your belief that you are a shining beacon of virtue in a harsh and cruel world.

You invade nations that have materials you want for your economy, and find that, surprisingly, the inhabitants do not greet you as liberators, and instead revolt against your misrule.

Of course, that sort of thing only happened to the British Empire in the 19th century. It wouldn't happen again, would it?

It's certainly a logical explanation model. And there's no way to disprove it. But I still don't think it's true. I think more along these lines. Everybody is prone to inflating their ego. Everybody is very good at justifying whatever behaviour no matter how base. I think it's a sickness permeating every society, and always has (probably always will). The difference between the powerful and the poor, is that the powerful cause more damage.

On what activities people do, I think is best explained by Hegelian dialectics. First there's a trend. Then there's a reaction against it. Then there's combination of them. Cycle repeats. The social trend that was going strong during the end of the 19'th century was National Romanticism. What makes me suspect that your theory isn't correct, is the fact that this trend of national hubris and chauvinism was international. All countries was doing it, rich or poor. The only difference is that when England did it, they stepped on lots of toes.

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

Romantic nationalism was a reaction against Romanticism. The national romantics thought the plain old romantics were weak and effeminate. They didn't have time to sit around and weep over the beauty of nature any more. Now was the time for action and to conquer the world.

The romantics were a reaction to the emotionally cold and overly reasonable age of enlightenment.

I think my explanation is a more robust model of explanation. But I'm not claiming I can prove it. I just think it makes more sense.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

and the kamikaze pilots were buddhist.

Mostly Shinto actually. And those who were buddhist didn't do it in the name of budhism. Pointing to their Budhism would be like pointing at Stalin or Mao's atheism. It wasn't why they did what they did and they didn't use it as part of their message or justification for their actions.

You haven't improved your position.

Anyone looking for the one thing that is the worst thing is going to find not the one thing (because there is no one thing) but the one bogey man they can then use as an excuse to dehumanize a group of people they didn't want to like in the first place.

 

[Medicine Man]

When the world's most wealthy and powerful nation is run by religious evangelists.....​

....Or, at the very least, influenced by religious evangelists'....and, their spawn.... ​

Franklin Graham:
The News Media Is Persecuting Christians
April 21, 2014

*​

"On Friday, Franklin Graham (Son O' Billy) cited the very real persecution of Christians abroad to claim that such anti-Christian persecution is occurring in the US.

Graham told Newsmax’s America’s Forum that the persecution comes from the American “entertainment industry, especially in certain segments of the news media.”

​

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Mostly Shinto actually. And those who were buddhist didn't do it in the name of budhism. Pointing to their Budhism would be like pointing at Stalin or Mao's atheism. It wasn't why they did what they did and they didn't use it as part of their message or justification for their actions.

You haven't improved your position.

Anyone looking for the one thing that is the worst thing is going to find not the one thing (because there is no one thing) but the one bogey man they can then use as an excuse to dehumanize a group of people they didn't want to like in the first place.

Violent muslims who do these acts directly and explicitly point to their religion as justification for these acts. To then pretend their religion has nothing to do with it is irrational. Shinto kamikazes, Stalin, and Mao did not do or justify what they did with religion. They didnt explicitly state they did what they did in the name of religion. They didnt quote scripture while doing it. The violent muslims do. Islam is a factor here.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hey....you know what they say.....​

Bu$ine$$ Is Bu$ine$$!!

*

"A variety of small, divided Arab states would be much easier to maneuver into oil deals than a large, independent Arab republic."​

I find your usage of creative fonts to be extremely tiring. It makes it hard to focus on what points you are making. I suggest going with the same formatting as everybody else.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Violent muslims who do these acts directly and explicitly point to their religion as justification for these acts. To then pretend their religion has nothing to do with it is irrational. Shinto kamikazes, Stalin, and Mao did not do or justify what they did with religion. They didnt explicitly state they did what they did in the name of religion. They didnt quote scripture while doing it. The violent muslims do. Islam is a factor here.

Yea. Conservative Muslims want to impose Sharia. Moderates do not. How can sharia be anything other than Islamic?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's beyond question that Islamic terrorism really is a thing and it's a problem? My question is:

Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?


I've read the Koran (and the Bible). I think the Koran and the Bible are interchangeable. If the Koran manages to make Muslims violent, then surely the Bible should make Christians just as violent? Baghavad Ghita has got even more war in it. It's partly pro-war propaganda IMHO. Why aren't Hindus murdering fashion designers who print the face of gods on sandals?

Here's the case I'm making; it's not the teachings of Islam that is the problem, it's the economic and political situation of the people who live in "the Muslim world". If religions would switch around between continents I'm convinced whatever religion they had in the Middle-East would be the problem child. Whatever it says in those religious texts, they would have been picked apart and twisted to justify suicide bombing. Case in point. First recorded use of a worn suicide bomb was by Christians (fighting Muslims) in Gozo 1551.

If you disagree and you think that it is the content of the Koran that is the problem, why?

It seems like you want to absolve religion of any responsibility for anything, good, bad or indifferent because in the absence of religion or the presence of other religions, people would still do horrible things but just use another ideology to justify it.

We way as well absolve any sort of ideology of blame for anything because people can always find justification in another ideology for doing the same thing.

Hm... I guess. To be perfectly honest, I have my own theory about religion and what it's for. I don't think religion teaches us morals. I don't think anybody learns any behaviour from religion. Partly morality is instinct and partly it's due to culture. And culture is a product of the market and technology. Ie a "materialistic reading of history". I believe that religion primarily is something you do. Not something you believe in. It's about the rituals, the traditions and a sense of community. It's also a kind of support network for people to get help in times of need. I believe that the religious books of Islam and Christianity are fetishes. Used in exactly the same way as pagan African animists used (and use) them. The words sound mystical. They're bizarre. Make little sense.

Another reason to give Islam a free pass is that the Koran is written in verse. Words are picked for their musical quality rather than being the best fit. It's not a legal text. That's the reason why Muslims keep insisting you read the Koran in the original language. It's not because Arabic is some sort of magical language. But simply because it's so very open to interpretation. Translations in other languages vary greatly without any of them being qualitatively worse translations. The Koran is in parts confusing. Just as the Bible often is self contradictory.

If I'd make an argument here is that Islamic terrorism isn't so much the result of Islam and the Islamic/Quranic influence. But rather the result of a rather complicated social issues in the Middle-East/Islamic world. The Middle-East is a world in transformation from an agrarian economy to industrial economy. From being a collection of authoritarian city states under the Ottoman thumb, to well... something else. It's a turbulent region where every generation is seeing all that they're accustomed to being rapidly replaced by something new. When the West was going through the same societal transition, ie end of the 19'th century, we too got a rise in fundamentalism. We got a rise of all kinds of extreme ideologies. Many violent. This is the period in our history that produced both the world wars. So when I hear Islamic terrorism being blamed on the Koran, it feels to me as if we might as well blame Nazism on the teachings of Jesus. Hitler was a catholic and did quote the Bible heavily. I think it's a way too simple and convenient explanation model. And to be perfectly honest I suspect that it's mostly just good ol' racism at the core.

Anyway... I can't really prove I'm right. But I do think this sounds more plausible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hey....you know what they say.....​

I find your usage of creative fonts to be extremely tiring. It makes it hard to focus on what points you are making. I suggest going with the same formatting as everybody else.

The color changes make it a pain for me far more than the fonts.

 

[Wiploc]

I find your usage of creative fonts to be extremely tiring. It makes it hard to focus on what points you are making. I suggest going with the same formatting as everybody else.

The color changes make it a pain for me far more than the fonts.

I scroll past them as fast as I can.

 

[arkirk]

I find your usage of creative fonts to be extremely tiring. It makes it hard to focus on what points you are making. I suggest going with the same formatting as everybody else.

The color changes make it a pain for me far more than the fonts.

Oh really? Despite all the fancying up of his posts, he does have things to say.