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

[Crazy Eddie]

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?

In various points, yes. Again, however, it's situational and depends on context, primarily because the Quran was not actually WRITTEN so much as recited verbally by Muhammed. Many of the passages that call for peaceable relations with pagans and non-Muslims actually refer to SPECIFIC groups of people with whom Muhammed was NOT (at the time) fighting with. Quranic scholars use the historical context of the passages to establish the meaning of those verses; that context is supposed to come from the hadith, which explains what Muhammed was doing and who he was talking to at the time of those recitations. This is the main reason why clerics are and have always been so highly important in Islam: you almost HAVE to be a scholar just to understand the book.

I'm sure you've heard it said, but it bears repeating that the Quran has only been translated from the original Arabic within the past century or so; this is quite a delay, considering that for most of Islamic history a narrow majority of Muslims did not actually SPEAK Arabic and very few were able to read it. The recitation of Quranic verses is a ritual practice that Muslims take to with gusto; careful study and meditation on those passages, not so much.

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.

I suspect you can quote whole passages from the Declaration of Independence; when's the last time you READ it?

In a similar vein: I have often amused myself by quoting Samuel Jackon's version of Ezekiel 25:17 in the presence of devout Christians who should no better. I've only been called on it once: by someone who actually looked up the quote after seeing Pulp Fiction.

Again: Muslims are very good at memorizing poems and slogans. It's not the Quran they're quoting so much as the slogans derived from it that suit whatever agenda they're acclimated to.

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?

Probably.

I used to have a notebook for this, but the only one that comes to mind off the top of my head is a passage to the effect of "Do not attack them first, but if they attack you fight them viciously! If they leave, let them go." There's actually quite a few of these, the gist of which is Muhammed telling his followers to be a bunch of stoic badasses who speak softly but carry a huge sword. That and the one most often-repeated virtue in the Quran is charity to the poor and assistance to the needy, it's actually tempting to interpret Islam as "The militant wing of the Salvation Army."

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.

Due PURELY to the fact that the central figure of the New Testament was a pacifist. The prophets of the Old Testament were not. Neither was Muhammed.

Of course, comparing Muhammed to Jesus is a bit like comparing Chris Rock to Sidney Poitiere and saying "Sidney seems to have more good parts to choose from."

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.

Pretty much, yeah. It's the "ask nicely" part that basically sums up the Quran's entire approach to forgiveness and tolerance. The idea being, Islam should dominate on Islamic lands, and Muslims are expected to win over all the infidels through sheer persistence. Violence, if anything, is supposed to be a last resort and then only when dealing with violent opposition (in which case the Quran's prescription is "Beat the living shit out of them and make them regret ever even thinking about raising arms against you.") Militancy skips that step and calls on its followers to BEGIN that process with violence.

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.

Just not as a causal factor, though. Quite the opposite, in fact: the teachings of militant Imams is as much a reaction as anything else. They could (and have) gone with far more altruistic philosophies in better times.

Significantly, Islam ITSELF is largely a reaction to the social and military pressures of nomadic Arab cultures. This is probably one of the reasons the Iranian and Turkish traditions are so heavily modified. Different cultures have different needs and Islam is interpreted to fit them.

When the pissed off peasants of the Middle East fly into a collective rage, Islam is modified to fit that too. When the rage ends and they again embrace a more productive path, the modification continues.

I'm not so sure about that. If I recall correctly the 9/11 hijackers were not living in rampant poverty.

They also didn't bother attacking the Saudi Government directly, nor were they -- it turns out -- supported by a larger organization capable of followup attacks even if it was in a position to do so, which it wasn't. That gives us a collection of 19 one-hit wonders who otherwise never commit an act of violence OTHER than that singular infamous attack, compared to career militants whose entire life is devoted to violence and the perpetuation of a militant ideology.

Put that another way: you can dupe just about anyone into dying for a cause. It's a lot harder to convince people to live for one.

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.

"Squalor" is not necessary. Actually, the majority of the most prominent terrorists of the late 20th century were, in fact, severely under-employed engineers.

Deprivation is relative. You may not feel that a person has just cause to be enraged at his condition, but that doesn't change his point of view on the matter. The question for our generation is why a huge group of Muslims are NOW raging against the entire civilized world the way that they are. Looking at the socioeconomic conditions and the dysfunctional states of the governments that serve them, it's not that hard to guess.

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.

Apparently you do, among various other factors, since the number of Muslims who actually commit murder for blasphemy against Muhammed is very very small.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

How do you know the number of "extremists" that read the quran versus the number of extremists who don't read the quran versus the number of extremists who can't read at all ?

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm sure you've heard it said, but it bears repeating that the Quran has only been translated from the original Arabic within the past century or so; this is quite a delay, considering that for most of Islamic history a narrow majority of Muslims did not actually SPEAK Arabic and very few were able to read it. The recitation of Quranic verses is a ritual practice that Muslims take to with gusto; careful study and meditation on those passages, not so much.

Where are you getting that? The first known complete translation of the Quran was in 884 AD, into Sindhi. The oldest surviving translation is Persian, from the 900s. There have been translations into Indonesian and Afghan languages since the 1600s and 1700s.

(Also, it was translated into Latin in the 1100s and into French, German and English in the 1600s; but translations intended for non-Muslims probably don't count.)

(Source)

 

[TSwizzle]

Apparently you do, among various other factors, since the number of Muslims who actually commit murder for blasphemy against Muhammed is very very small.

So how many people who have openly blasphemed against mohammed lived to tell the tale ? Do you think that very, very small number of murders is down to round the clock security details for the likes of Salman Rushdie ? Lawyers that defend blasphemers have been murdered. Muhammad Asghar, in jail in Pakistan for blasphemy, shot by a guard. He did live, so I suppose that doesn't count. I think it's more rife than you let on, it's just lack of success that is misleading.

 

[Bomb#20]

The point is, the way they were using it was by giving the people what they perceived that the people wanted.

Monarchy and fascism retain power by playing out factions against each other and blaming all ills (falsely) on minorities. They exploit the human natural propensity for xenophobia. And they use propaganda to affirm the people's irrational fears. So claiming that this is what the people of Iran want is ignorant to the extreme.

A masterful melding of abuse and illogic. Classy.

Reminds me of a speech I heard yesterday by a Jewish holocaust survivor. His conclusion is that we haven't learned anything from the holocaust. Your comment confirms it.

Followed by abuse, illogic and Godwin. You've outdone yourself. And yet it seems you're just getting started.

But on the freedom of religion. The Ottoman Empire, ie Islamic Caliphate also had freedom of religion.

You're offering the Ottoman Empire into evidence as to what 21st century Muslims typically think?

No. The contention is whether or not Muslim identified countries are capable of religious freedom. The Ottoman empire proved that it is.

But still, remarkably free. Pre-dating Enlightenment style self-identification by 300 years. No, it isn't exactly the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification. Still religious freedom.

According to your own link, "Israel, too, keeps a system based on the Ottoman-derived Millet, in which personal status is based on a person's belonging to a religious community. ... the state of Israel reserves the right to determine to which community a person belongs, and officially register him or her accordingly — even when the person concerned objects to being part of a religious community (e.g., staunch atheists of Jewish origin are registered as members of the Jewish religious community, a practice derived ultimately from the fact that the Ottoman Millet ultimately designated a person's ethnicity more than a person's beliefs)."

I just said that it's not the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification. It's in the text you are right now quoting. You're also equivocating between different types of religious freedom as if you're hoping that I won't catch you doing it.

And now you've added a libelous accusation. Have you considered the merits of reading what you write and checking to see if it's at least half-way fact-based and at least half-way civilized before you post it?

But I think you must behaving this way because of a misunderstanding. When I saw you write "it isn't exactly the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification", I took you to mean that it was some different style of self-identification. So naturally I argued that it was no sort of self-identification at all, not having grasped that you didn't mean to claim it was any sort of self-identification at all. I mistakenly fastened on the word "style" because it appeared to support my preconception that you were arguing about self-identification. I was only assuming you were arguing about self-identification because that's what I was talking about to other people when you jumped in to tell me I was wrong. That was poor evidence for my assumption. My bad. I apologize for causing this misunderstanding between us by obtusely not recognizing that you were not attempting to address my arguments and were just preaching at me.

So, since you evidently never had any interest in the claims in the posts you chose to reply to, we might as well talk about your sermon.

But on the freedom of religion. ... But each Ottoman citizen was officially free to pick religions.

What's your evidence for that?

Actually it was initially illegal for Ottoman Christians to convert to Islam. The reason being to emphasize how the Sultan respected Christian faith. ... Calling the Ottoman empire religiously intolerant is absurd.

Um, you've just given evidence against the claim you made that I asked you for evidence for, and demonstrated the Ottoman Empire was religiously intolerant.

When queen Isabella expelled all the Jews from Spain it was the Ottoman empire who opened their doors to let them in. At this time the Ottoman empire was the richest empire in the world. The really didn't have to. But they strongly identified with being cosmopolitan and open to the world.

You might want to check out Underseer's post on that topic.

I'd say the devsirme system makes the opposite point. The men picked as Janissaries had the opportunity to have a career and climb in the hierarchy. This was often highly advantageous for the villages and families who got prominent Janissaries. Opportunities poor farmers otherwise wouldn't have. So the image of the devsirme system as universally unpopular just isn't true.

That's not the opposite point. Not that you ever gave a damn what my point was -- all I was suggesting was that the boys didn't get a choice about it. At no time did I suggest it was universally or even generally unpopular. Obviously many parents were devastated to lose their sons, while many other parents were relieved their sons wouldn't go hungry any more, and/or hoped to get wealth and status as a result.

Even so, the fact that the Janissaries were recruited from non-Muslims was to demonstrate how the Ottoman rulers respected non-Muslims. Not the other way around.

And since Janissaries were officially property of the Sultan, ie slaves, they had zero freedom regarding anything. So obviously not religion either. I never said the Ottoman empire was a modern liberal and democratic state. It wasn't. But that wasn't by point.

Yes, you've made your point over and over. The Sultan respected Christian faith. The Ottoman rulers respected non-Muslims. And you call this a type of "religious freedom", even though it's transparently all about respect, not freedom. So it appears the problem is that you can't tell the difference between religious freedom and religious pluralism.

Religious pluralism is a cartel. The bosses of the major religions agree to divide up their subjects and not compete on each others' spiritual turf, just like the bosses of drug gangs divvying up addicts. The goal is not to avoid violating people's rights. The goal is to keep the peace by keeping the different religions' bosses from feeling disrespected, and by keeping the number of furious subjects too small to launch a rebellion by arranging it so that what most people are ordered to worship is the thing they were going to worship anyway. That doesn't mean each Ottoman citizen was free to pick religions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Monarchy and fascism retain power by playing out factions against each other and blaming all ills (falsely) on minorities. They exploit the human natural propensity for xenophobia. And they use propaganda to affirm the people's irrational fears. So claiming that this is what the people of Iran want is ignorant to the extreme.

A masterful melding of abuse and illogic. Classy.

Reminds me of a speech I heard yesterday by a Jewish holocaust survivor. His conclusion is that we haven't learned anything from the holocaust. Your comment confirms it.

Followed by abuse, illogic and Godwin. You've outdone yourself. And yet it seems you're just getting started.

But on the freedom of religion. The Ottoman Empire, ie Islamic Caliphate also had freedom of religion.

You're offering the Ottoman Empire into evidence as to what 21st century Muslims typically think?

No. The contention is whether or not Muslim identified countries are capable of religious freedom. The Ottoman empire proved that it is.

But still, remarkably free. Pre-dating Enlightenment style self-identification by 300 years. No, it isn't exactly the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification. Still religious freedom.

According to your own link, "Israel, too, keeps a system based on the Ottoman-derived Millet, in which personal status is based on a person's belonging to a religious community. ... the state of Israel reserves the right to determine to which community a person belongs, and officially register him or her accordingly — even when the person concerned objects to being part of a religious community (e.g., staunch atheists of Jewish origin are registered as members of the Jewish religious community, a practice derived ultimately from the fact that the Ottoman Millet ultimately designated a person's ethnicity more than a person's beliefs)."

I just said that it's not the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification. It's in the text you are right now quoting. You're also equivocating between different types of religious freedom as if you're hoping that I won't catch you doing it.

And now you've added a libelous accusation. Have you considered the merits of reading what you write and checking to see if it's at least half-way fact-based and at least half-way civilized before you post it?

But I think you must behaving this way because of a misunderstanding. When I saw you write "it isn't exactly the same thing as Enlightenment style self-identification", I took you to mean that it was some different style of self-identification. So naturally I argued that it was no sort of self-identification at all, not having grasped that you didn't mean to claim it was any sort of self-identification at all. I mistakenly fastened on the word "style" because it appeared to support my preconception that you were arguing about self-identification. I was only assuming you were arguing about self-identification because that's what I was talking about to other people when you jumped in to tell me I was wrong. That was poor evidence for my assumption. My bad. I apologize for causing this misunderstanding between us by obtusely not recognizing that you were not attempting to address my arguments and were just preaching at me.

So, since you evidently never had any interest in the claims in the posts you chose to reply to, we might as well talk about your sermon.

But on the freedom of religion. ... But each Ottoman citizen was officially free to pick religions.

What's your evidence for that?

Actually it was initially illegal for Ottoman Christians to convert to Islam. The reason being to emphasize how the Sultan respected Christian faith. ... Calling the Ottoman empire religiously intolerant is absurd.

Um, you've just given evidence against the claim you made that I asked you for evidence for, and demonstrated the Ottoman Empire was religiously intolerant.

When queen Isabella expelled all the Jews from Spain it was the Ottoman empire who opened their doors to let them in. At this time the Ottoman empire was the richest empire in the world. The really didn't have to. But they strongly identified with being cosmopolitan and open to the world.

You might want to check out Underseer's post on that topic.

I'd say the devsirme system makes the opposite point. The men picked as Janissaries had the opportunity to have a career and climb in the hierarchy. This was often highly advantageous for the villages and families who got prominent Janissaries. Opportunities poor farmers otherwise wouldn't have. So the image of the devsirme system as universally unpopular just isn't true.

That's not the opposite point. Not that you ever gave a damn what my point was -- all I was suggesting was that the boys didn't get a choice about it. At no time did I suggest it was universally or even generally unpopular. Obviously many parents were devastated to lose their sons, while many other parents were relieved their sons wouldn't go hungry any more, and/or hoped to get wealth and status as a result.

Even so, the fact that the Janissaries were recruited from non-Muslims was to demonstrate how the Ottoman rulers respected non-Muslims. Not the other way around.

And since Janissaries were officially property of the Sultan, ie slaves, they had zero freedom regarding anything. So obviously not religion either. I never said the Ottoman empire was a modern liberal and democratic state. It wasn't. But that wasn't by point.

Yes, you've made your point over and over. The Sultan respected Christian faith. The Ottoman rulers respected non-Muslims. And you call this a type of "religious freedom", even though it's transparently all about respect, not freedom. So it appears the problem is that you can't tell the difference between religious freedom and religious pluralism.

Religious pluralism is a cartel. The bosses of the major religions agree to divide up their subjects and not compete on each others' spiritual turf, just like the bosses of drug gangs divvying up addicts. The goal is not to avoid violating people's rights. The goal is to keep the peace by keeping the different religions' bosses from feeling disrespected, and by keeping the number of furious subjects too small to launch a rebellion by arranging it so that what most people are ordered to worship is the thing they were going to worship anyway. That doesn't mean each Ottoman citizen was free to pick religions.

All over the place except where it needs to be. The minor problem with all of this is that none of it is relevant. If you don't see how you are disproving your own arguments I'm not sure how I can help you.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm sure you've heard it said, but it bears repeating that the Quran has only been translated from the original Arabic within the past century or so; this is quite a delay, considering that for most of Islamic history a narrow majority of Muslims did not actually SPEAK Arabic and very few were able to read it. The recitation of Quranic verses is a ritual practice that Muslims take to with gusto; careful study and meditation on those passages, not so much.

Where are you getting that? The first known complete translation of the Quran was in 884 AD, into Sindhi. The oldest surviving translation is Persian, from the 900s. There have been translations into Indonesian and Afghan languages since the 1600s and 1700s.

(Also, it was translated into Latin in the 1100s and into French, German and English in the 1600s; but translations intended for non-Muslims probably don't count.)

(Source)

No, I'm not referring to European translations made by Europeans (i.e. Christians) for other purposes. My point is that MUSLIMS did not consider the translation or reprinting of the Quran to be necessary -- or even acceptable -- except in very special circumstances.

My understanding is that INDIVIDUAL translations have existed since at least Muhammed's time, primarily for use by religious/political leaders of the Muslim world or its nearby satellites, but it has only become acceptable to publish non-Arabic translations of the Quran for the general (Muslim) public since about the mid 19th century. Prior to that, it wasn't considered necessary for Muslims to fully understand the Quran; merely reciting it was enough, relying instead on the clerics for spiritual and religious guidance.

Similar, possibly, to pre-enlightenment Christianity, in which the Bible was rarely translated from Latin and the study thereof was almost exclusively a task for the clergy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Apparently you do, among various other factors, since the number of Muslims who actually commit murder for blasphemy against Muhammed is very very small.

So how many people who have openly blasphemed against mohammed lived to tell the tale ?

More than I am interested in counting right this moment, but Robert Morey has been doing it -- openly and unapologetically -- for almost 20 years and still hasn't been murdered. For that matter, neither have I.

Do you think that very, very small number of murders is down to round the clock security details for the likes of Salman Rushdie ?

No, but then Salman Rushdie's crime wasn't blasphemy so much as being a shitty writer.

I think it's more rife than you let on

And considerably less than YOU let on, considering you just asked me "how many blasphemers haven't been murdered?" implying that it's rare to openly commit blasphemy against Muhammed WITHOUT getting murdered.

I WILL say Muslims are a touchy bunch, and I've been punched in the face at least twice for it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Pretty much, yeah. It's the "ask nicely" part that basically sums up the Quran's entire approach to forgiveness and tolerance. The idea being, Islam should dominate on Islamic lands, and Muslims are expected to win over all the infidels through sheer persistence. Violence, if anything, is supposed to be a last resort and then only when dealing with violent opposition (in which case the Quran's prescription is "Beat the living shit out of them and make them regret ever even thinking about raising arms against you.") Militancy skips that step and calls on its followers to BEGIN that process with violence.

Right. It isn't "turn the other cheek" or even "an eye for an eye". It is beat the living shit out of them and make them regret. Regret what? That depends on how the Muslim in question sees things. Could be regret raising arms against them, as you say. Or it could be regret speaking against Islam (especially apostates). Or it could be regret daring to draw a cartoon.

And if you say that no, it has to be "violence", then consider this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...beyond-free-speech-its-an-act-of-violence.htm

The root for this is right there in Islam. It is not a religion of pacifism. It is a religion of violent reaction, and as we have recently seen, it can be incredibly thin skinned and sensitive.

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.

Apparently you do, among various other factors, since the number of Muslims who actually commit murder for blasphemy against Muhammed is very very small.

How does the number who murder being small prove that it is done due to dire conditions? The data doesn't seem to bare that out.

 

[untermensche]

...I WILL say Muslims are a touchy bunch, and I've been punched in the face at least twice for it.

I remember once a Christian friend of mine threatening me with harm if I didn't stop expressing my doubts of the truth of his religion.

Humans can be very touchy about their religious beliefs.

And Muslims are humans, nothing more.

 

[Potoooooooo]

I WILL say Muslims are a touchy bunch, and I've been punched in the face at least twice for it.

Whoa, what the fuck happened

 

[Cerberus]

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?

From what I've gathered from Bitter Lake, the problem isn't so much religion as sectarianism. So my own conclusion is that the radical Muslim groups like Islamic State, Boko Haram, AQ, Al-shabaab et al are extreme orthodox Wahhabis (the most violent and dogma-driven form of Islam), who want to 'turn the clock back' to the origins of Islam in the 7th century. There couldn't be a more dangerous time for the West to be governed by what are essentially not very bright bureaucrats when we so desperately need statesmanship.

I've just had a thought: maybe the West should get Putin on-side for when the shit hits the fan? He'd know what to do - and he'd do it! (if they'd let him?

)

 

[Harry Bosch]

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?

From what I've gathered from Bitter Lake, the problem isn't so much religion as sectarianism. So my own conclusion is that the radical Muslim groups like Islamic State, Boko Haram, AQ, Al-shabaab et al are extreme orthodox Wahhabis (the most violent and dogma-driven form of Islam), who want to 'turn the clock back' to the origins of Islam in the 7th century. There couldn't be a more dangerous time for the West to be governed by what are essentially not very bright bureaucrats when we so desperately need statesmanship.

I've just had a thought: maybe the West should get Putin on-side for when the shit hits the fan? He'd know what to do - and he'd do it! (if they'd let him?

)

Putin is a dictator leading a government that doesn't allow for personal rights. That might be okay with Russians, but wouldn't work in the US. It wouldn't work in most of the "west".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I WILL say Muslims are a touchy bunch, and I've been punched in the face at least twice for it.

Whoa, what the fuck happened

 

[Cerberus]

From what I've gathered from Bitter Lake, the problem isn't so much religion as sectarianism. So my own conclusion is that the radical Muslim groups like Islamic State, Boko Haram, AQ, Al-shabaab et al are extreme orthodox Wahhabis (the most violent and dogma-driven form of Islam), who want to 'turn the clock back' to the origins of Islam in the 7th century. There couldn't be a more dangerous time for the West to be governed by what are essentially not very bright bureaucrats when we so desperately need statesmanship.

I've just had a thought: maybe the West should get Putin on-side for when the shit hits the fan? He'd know what to do - and he'd do it! (if they'd let him?

)

Putin is a dictator leading a government that doesn't allow for personal rights. That might be okay with Russians, but wouldn't work in the US. It wouldn't work in most of the "west".

I actually believe we could use a spell of 'dictatorship' to steer our own countries back on track in restraining the liberal excesses and dumb bureaucratisation which are so evidently rampant in the US and UK.

 

[Draconis]

A test of this thread's question might be to see whether followers of other religions in the same circumstances are violent too. But... it's easier to be violent if you're in a large majority.

 

[SimpleDon]

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?

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.

 

[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.

Yup--that's behind some of the suicide bombings.

Young men with basically zero hope of ever having sex. Is it any wonder some are manipulated into suicide bombing in order to get women in heaven?

 

[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?

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.

 

[Cerberus]

I personally don't believe Muslims are any more violent than Christians; but jihadists have hi-jacked the Koran for the obvious reason - global domination.