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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

Maybe so but I used ignore, so I don't really know.

 

[Wiploc]

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

I'm not likely to find out unless he quits shouting.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Why do violent Muslims exist when the vast majority of Muslims are not violent yet profess the ssame religion?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Violent muslims who do these acts directly and explicitly point to their religion as justification for these acts.

Is that the only reason they ever give?

To then pretend their religion has nothing to do with it is irrational.

And I said that where?

Shinto kamikazes, Stalin, and Mao did not do or justify what they did with religion.

They used mostly blind faith in nationalism and indeology but not only that. They appealed to race, gender, income inequality, etc.

They didnt explicitly state they did what they did in the name of religion. They didnt quote scripture while doing it.

They quoted Marx, Engels and any other authority that suited their purpose.

The violent muslims do. Islam is a factor here.

I see what you did there,

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

Violent muslims who do these acts directly and explicitly point to their religion as justification for these acts
That is your answer

You move the goalposts from the universal statement about a religion cause its members to behave a certain way to a certain qualified group within the religion using religion as a justification to explain a predisposed position.

 

[Axulus]

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.

Why do violent Muslims exist when the vast majority of Muslims are not violent yet profess the ssame religion?

Non-violent Muslims are ordinary. Non-violent humans (in this day and age) are ordinary, they are the norm. What is unusual is those who commit extreme violence: those who kill cartoonists, those who suicide bomb, those who behead, those who stone to death "adulterers" and homosexuals. This is unusual and extraordinary behavior that demands an explanation.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why do violent Muslims exist when the vast majority of Muslims are not violent yet profess the ssame religion?

Non-violent Muslims are ordinary. Non-violent humans (in this day and age) are ordinary, they are the norm. What is unusual is those who commit extreme violence: those who kill cartoonists, those who suicide bomb, those who behead, those who stone to death "adulterers" and homosexuals. This is unusual and extraordinary behavior that demands an explanation.

Why only one explanation?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Non-violent Muslims are ordinary. Non-violent humans (in this day and age) are ordinary, they are the norm. What is unusual is those who commit extreme violence: those who kill cartoonists, those who suicide bomb, those who behead, those who stone to death "adulterers" and homosexuals. This is unusual and extraordinary behavior that demands an explanation.

Why only one explanation?

Islam is not the only reason. People don't read the Quran and immediately and for that reason only go hunting humans for sport. Can both sides of this conversation come to the table without straw men to deflect seeing and admitting the other side's point?

Can you admit that Islam is a reason? Can you look at the Quran and the other teachings of the religion without reflexively leaping to the political correctness that it must not be dangerous? Can you actually look at it and what it has done to people?

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

Yes. That seems to be a big part of it. Jains and Amish don't seem to do such violence while screaming their religion.

 

[untermensche]

...Can you actually look at it and what it has done to people?...

How does that work?

How do books cause people to do things?

Please be specific.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...Can you actually look at it and what it has done to people?...

How does that work?

How do books cause people to do things?

Please be specific.

Yeah, it's not the books, it's the preachers that use them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yeah, it's not the books, it's the preachers that use them.

The books and preachers together, making up the dogma and religious beliefs. It wouldn't be hard to think up a holy book, some doctrines and go around preaching some much much better beliefs more conducive to peace and non-violence.

 

[repoman]

JP,

post #107 should have been the OP and anyone not addressing these points in an open minded way should be bounced from the thread.

Tired of people flogging their pet theories just to talk and that includes myself.

 

[Wiploc]

Can you admit that Islam is a reason?

Sure it's a reason, just like Christianity is a reason.

Can you look at the Quran and the other teachings of the religion without reflexively leaping to the political correctness that it must not be dangerous?

Sure it's dangerous, just like the bible is dangerous.

Can you actually look at it and what it has done to people?

Messes them up big time, like, say, the bible.

The OP asks this: Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?

Some Muslims are violent, and some of those point to their scripture when they do violence. You seem to want us to believe that makes Islam special, but your evidence applies equally to Christianity: Some violent Christians point to their scripture as justification.

Won't you agree that there have been times and situations where Muslims have been less violent, and more tolerant and accepting and decent, than Christians were? If so, how do you conclude that the Koran, or Islam, is what causes Muslims to be more violent now? Why can't it be the current situation that induces them to act out?

I'm not saying that's the explanation. I'm just saying that I don't see that your claim is well enough supported to warrant our believing it.

Also, up above there, where I seem to say that Muslims are more violent than Christians.... Well, I do have a lightly held belief that that is true, but only if we don't take the military into account. As long as we keep sending our Christian-dominated army over there, it will be hard to argue persuasively that they do more than their share of the violence.

 

[Togo]

Can you admit that Islam is a reason? Can you look at the Quran and the other teachings of the religion without reflexively leaping to the political correctness that it must not be dangerous? Can you actually look at it and what it has done to people?

Sure. What do you feel it does for people, and what evidence is there that it is Islam that does it?

The problem here is not that people won't listen - they are listening. The problem is that most people who read the Quran, follow the Islamic religion, and are practicing Muslims, are no more violent than anyone else. What that means, from the point of view of the science of human behaviour, is that Being Islamic is not a significant factor, and that if you want to explain some facet of behaviour, then you need to look elsewhere.

So if Being Islamic is not a significant factor, then it might still be the case that it exerts some small influence towards violence. All we need to do to demonstrate that is to take account of all the other confounding factors. So it comes down to whether you want to consider the effects is Islam along with the effects of being invaded, threatened by foreigners, attempts to blend a highly urbanised population with assorted nomadic cultures, and the military threats posed by other religious groups, such as the Christians and the Jews.

But we really need an arguement, and some kind of evidence for either of these. At present, saying that Muslims are prone to terrorism is like saying that Chrisitians are prone to airstrikes. Yes there are a lot of Muslim terrorists out there. And yes, almost all the airstrikes are carried out by christians, as are all the world's flying robot killing machines. But you need to realise that that isn't enough to make the point you want to make, so you need to back it up with something.

The impression I'm getting is that you've really got nothing there, except a preconception that Islam is violent, and an irritation that people won't agree with something that to you seems self-evident.

 

[Nexus]

The OP asks this: Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?

Some Muslims are violent, and some of those point to their scripture when they do violence. You seem to want us to believe that makes Islam special, but your evidence applies equally to Christianity: Some violent Christians point to their scripture as justification.

Now that you have blamed Christianity for being just as bad lets move on to other religions, for instance Taoism. Would you say the teachings and scripture of that religion are also just as bad and Islam? If the doctrine and practice of a religion in an area have negligible effect and its primarily culture surely you can cite examples of radical Taoists terrorizing others to the same degree as Muslims/Christians.

 

[Togo]

The OP asks this: Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?

Some Muslims are violent, and some of those point to their scripture when they do violence. You seem to want us to believe that makes Islam special, but your evidence applies equally to Christianity: Some violent Christians point to their scripture as justification.

Now that you have blamed Christianity for being just as bad lets move on to other religions, for instance Taoism. Would you say the teachings and scripture of that religion are also just as bad and Islam? If the doctrine and practice of a religion in an area have negligible effect and its primarily culture surely you can cite examples of radical Taoists terrorizing others to the same degree as Muslims/Christians.

Or indeed to the same degree as atheists. Plenty of violent atheists out there, so clearly if we can't find violent self-proclaimed taoists, but can find violent self-proclaimed atheists, this means than atheism makes you violent. Right?

 

[repoman]

Islam seems to make groups of people violent for an identifiable cause.

Hard to see vanilla atheism do that. Now communism was not atheist for atheism's sake but because they wanted to stop religious fervor.

 

[Togo]

Islam seems to make groups of people violent for an identifiable cause.

Hard to see vanilla atheism do that. Now communism was not atheist for atheism's sake but because they wanted to stop religious fervor.

In other words, Atheism seems to make groups of people violent for an indentifiable cause (a desire to stop religious fervor). Obviously communism is not vanilla atheism, but then exploding bombs for Allah isn't vanilla Islam.

That's why we say Islam doesn't make people violent, any more than atheism makes people violent, even though both creeds have been cited to justify violence.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Then he should probably get around to saying them one of these days. Spamming links to news articles and videos isn't particularly insightful.

Why do violent Muslims exist when the vast majority of Muslims are not violent yet profess the ssame religion?

Non-violent Muslims are ordinary. Non-violent humans (in this day and age) are ordinary, they are the norm. What is unusual is those who commit extreme violence: those who kill cartoonists, those who suicide bomb, those who behead, those who stone to death "adulterers" and homosexuals. This is unusual and extraordinary behavior that demands an explanation.

There's a logic problem with your thinking.

You have a very small population of human beings who are currently performing spectacularly violent crimes. This small population appears to belong to a much larger sub population, namely, Muslims. You are implying that because all the criminals have Islam in common, then Islam must be a causal factor in their behavior.

Is Islam ALONE sufficient to trigger violent behavior? Well, by all accounts the vast majority of Muslims do not resort to terrorism, so the answer is clearly no: Islam is not sufficient to trigger violent behavior. Is Islam NECESSARY to trigger violent behavior? Again, both historically and currently, we find that Muslims are NOT unique among actors of terrorist atrocities and in fact aren't even the worst offenders.

So clearly, Islam is not a necessary or sufficient factor in terrorist activity. It may therefore be a factor in the motivation of terrorists, but it isn't a CAUSAL one. IOW: Islamic teachings DO NOT make Muslims more violent. Islamic teachings provide a ritual/religious structure for violent Muslims (it also provides a religious structure for non-violent Muslims who are often killed in terrorist attacks).

 

[Medicine Man]

I think it's beyond question that terrorism in the name of Islam is more violent than any other type of religious terrorism.

It's going to be very hard to get past this initial assumption to anything useful.

....Especially if you're talking to a....​

....FAUX Noise Fan!!
January 18, 2015

*​

"Fox News took time out of four broadcasts on Saturday to apologize for four separate instances of incorrect information that portrayed Muslims in a negative light.

Several of the cases involved incendiary comments about "no-go zones" in Europe, where Islamic law supposedly supersedes local law and where non-Muslims fear to go.

Other media outlets have accused Fox of exaggerations and falsehoods, and even British Prime Minister David Cameron mocked one of the assertions.

On Saturday, Fox apologized morning, noon and night."

​

 

[Wiploc]

The OP asks this: Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?

Some Muslims are violent, and some of those point to their scripture when they do violence. You seem to want us to believe that makes Islam special, but your evidence applies equally to Christianity: Some violent Christians point to their scripture as justification.

Now that you have blamed Christianity for being just as bad

I take offense at your misrepresentation.

lets move on to other religions, for instance Taoism. Would you say the teachings and scripture of that religion are also just as bad and Islam?

I don't know anything about Taoism.

I assume Taoism is bad, though, since you call it a religion, and since I'm prejudiced against religions.

If the doctrine and practice of a religion in an area have negligible effect and its primarily culture surely you can cite examples of radical Taoists terrorizing others to the same degree as Muslims/Christians.

I'm an ignorant American, so no.

I don't know what you're upset about, but you've got me upset too. I'm not sure we're going to get along.