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

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Except you're wrong here.

While most Muslims aren't violent when you look at religious violence it's almost always Muslims doing it. Thus practicing Muslims are more violent than others.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

It's impossible to separate religion and culture. A society that is violent will invent violent religions or adopt religions that reflect that violence, objectively speaking, and ultimately reflecting local conditions. Guns, Germs and Steel is still a good read.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?

Those are two separate questions, and the thread title is "Is it really Islam's teachings that make Muslims Violent". That is the question I address. The answer is in large part yes. Just listen to the people who do these acts. They will tell you directly. They will quote their holy book. It is no excuse that Christianity has done it too. I'd rather not go through the horrors that Christianity brought upon us all over again. And to suggest that it had nothing to do with what was written in the Bible is ridiculous.

As others here have said, look at Jainism, look the Ahmish, look at Atheism for that matter. These groups lack texts telling them it is just to kill non-believers. We don't see much violence from their ranks and in their name.

These are both barbaric texts that the world would be better without. These are both looked to to justify violence and attrocity. And it could be very easy to write holy books that are much less violent-prone. That is all I am saying, and we seem to have people in this thread and elsewhere who balk at that. As soon as we admit that Islam is part of the problem, we can move on and have a producting discussion. I am glad to see you admitting it. Others won't.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Even amongst non-violent muslims, would anybody here disagree that most if not all muslims are thinner skinned when it comes to their religion than most other religions? These cartoons have brought a lot of condemnation from moderate muslims, which is great, but 90% of the time that condemnation is immediately followed by a tirade against the cartoons and how horrible they are. I even read an article on how writing these cartoons is in itself an "act of violence" against muslims. What makes muslims so thin skinned? We atheists get told by the very doctrines of most religions that we are horrible creatures who deserve to burn forever in torturous flames, and we don't tend to get as upset. Nor do homosexuals, and look what they have been through.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

...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.

No problem. Here is specifically how that works: from an early age the minds of children raised in the Muslim religion are polluted and corrupted. Religion corrupts the mind. (Source)

 

[Bomb#20]

...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.

JP didn't say it was just the books; untermensche snipped out the words "the Quran and the other teachings of the religion". What the preachers say to the congregations are other teachings of the religion.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Well, if we're subdividing, then yes, saying Islam makes groups of people violent would be rather like saying atheism makes groups of people violent instead of saying, more accurately, that communism makes groups of people violent. Non-communist atheists as a group are not particularly violent; likewise, Ahmadi Muslims as a group are not particularly violent. Generalizing to Islam as a whole is just as unfair to Ahmadiyya as generalizing to atheism as a whole from communism.

So shall we take it as read that those suggesting Islam seems to make groups of people violent really only mean to say that Sunni and Shi'ite Islam seem to make groups of people violent? And shall we take it as read that those defending Islam from the charge would find the narrower statement equally objectionable, that they object to attributions of violence to any religion, and they also find it unacceptable for us to say communism makes groups of people violent?

 

[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.

No problem. Here is specifically how that works: from an early age the minds of children raised in the Muslim religion are polluted and corrupted. Religion corrupts the mind. (Source)

That is indoctrination, not a book doing something.

 

[repoman]

This guy has big brass balls:

 

[Bomb#20]

...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.

No problem. Here is specifically how that works: from an early age the minds of children raised in the Muslim religion are polluted and corrupted. Religion corrupts the mind. (Source)

That is indoctrination, not a book doing something.

Why are you still pushing the fiction that JP said it was a book doing something? You have already been corrected on that point. First you snipped his words; then when I brought them back you snipped them again. Are you doing that deliberately in order to deflect seeing and admitting his point?

For the third time:

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?

In your mind, does "teachings of the religion" refer to some different thing from the content of the indoctrination? Perhaps the Platonic Form of the True Meaning of Islam(TM)?

 

[Nexus]

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?

I specifically asked about the degree of violence in the group. If you can show the stats that atheists as a group are as likely to be violent as say Muslims then yes we can discuss what doctrines of atheism make people violent.

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.

Do you have evidence the bolded part is true? Not just that it makes people violent but makes them violent to the same degree as Islam.

 

[repoman]

Does the Quran and the Hadiths suck balls at the same or higher level as the Torah and New Testament?

Also it seems that the Meccan and Medinan Suras are the good cop/bad cop of Islam. Both Xtians and Jews have bipolarity but not quite as starkly as Islam

 

[Nexus]

Now that you have blamed Christianity for being just as bad

I take offense at your misrepresentation.

There was no misrepresentation. You clearly stated Christianity was just as bad as Islam. I even agree with that when Christianity is examined throughout its entire history.

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.

I'm prejudiced against them too. However I corectly recognize some are more malignant than others.

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.

You should strive to dispel your ignorance then you wouldn't have false beliefs like religions are equal in how they affect people.

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.

I'm not upset at all and my post in no way indicated I was. You're projecting and you're upset because your beliefs are wrong. Of course Taoism doesn't promote violence unlike Islam or Christianity thats why I used it as an example. Your under the mistaken belief that all religions affect people equally. That mistaken belief is exposed when you examine different religion's histories. The eastern religions are much more tolerant than the Abrahamic ones. Thats why you can have Hindi/buddists/taoists sharing doctrines even aspects of less tolerant religions like Christianity.

The eastern faiths believe there are many paths to the divine so they aren't threatened like Islam or Christianity and their intrinsic us vs them mentality our way is the only way.

When Buddha founded his religion in India the Hindi didn't freak out and try to extinguish his new path. Compare that with how the Catholic church responded to the Protestant reformation. And the history of bloodshed between those two factions of essentially the same religion. Or look at the Sunni/Shia violent history.

 

[untermensche]

Why are you still pushing the fiction that JP said it was a book doing something? You have already been corrected on that point. First you snipped his words; then when I brought them back you snipped them again. Are you doing that deliberately in order to deflect seeing and admitting his point?

Fine, then you admit books don't make people do things.

So it isn't the books that are the problem.

It is people who use the books for some agenda.

And when millions of Muslims have been under attack from the West for decades those people will use the books to attack back.

This is about geopolitics and the violent intrusion of the West into Muslim nations and the response to that intrusion.

This is about politics, not religion.

 

[Wiploc]

I take offense at your misrepresentation.

There was no misrepresentation. You clearly stated Christianity was just as bad as Islam.

You show me where I said that!

You should strive to dispel your ignorance then you wouldn't have false beliefs like religions are equal in how they affect people.

I don't have that belief. I've already told you that I take offense at your misrepresentation. I want you to stop lying about me.

You're projecting and you're upset because your beliefs are wrong.

You, apparently, have no idea what my beliefs are. You shouldn't declare yourself an authority on beliefs you are unfamiliar with.

Your under the mistaken belief that all religions affect people equally.

Show

Edit

. I want you to apologize Edit.

 

[Nexus]

There was no misrepresentation. You clearly stated Christianity was just as bad as Islam.

You show me where I said that!

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

Your under the mistaken belief that all religions affect people equally.

I'm reporting your post. You're being a real jerk. I want you to apologize and stop lying.

You will need to cry moar before I apologize. But to clear things up, do you think Islam's teachings make Muslims more violent than other religions? Or do you believe different religions affect people equally?

 

[Bomb#20]

Fine, then you admit books don't make people do things.

You know what the word "admit" means, don't you? "concede as true or valid <admitted making a mistake>"

You know what the word "concede" means, don't you? "admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it."

Your turn. Either (1) quote me denying or resisting that books don't make people do things,
or (2) quote Jolly_Penguin denying or resisting that books don't make people do things,
or (3) admit that you've been misrepresenting your opponents and stop doing it.

So it isn't the books that are the problem.

It is people who use the books for some agenda.

So your theory, then, is that Christianity would have been every bit as effective as it has been at turning people into sheep even if it's holy scripture had been "The Little Engine that Could"?[/sarcasm] This doesn't have to be either/or, for chrissakes! It's the combination of the people and the books that's the problem.

And when millions of Muslims have been under attack from the West for decades those people will use the books to attack back.

This is about geopolitics and the violent intrusion of the West into Muslim nations and the response to that intrusion.

Uh huh. When a Muslim governor argues that a Muslim government shouldn't execute its own subjects for blasphemy, his own Muslim bodyguards murder him for blasphemy, and killing him makes them popular with that government's Muslim subjects, and the reason those people have that attitude toward blasphemy and the importance of killing their fellow Muslims over it is that that's just their way of attacking back against the West. Riiight.

 

[untermensche]

You know what the word "admit" means, don't you? "concede as true or valid <admitted making a mistake>"

Why are American Muslims not using suicide bombers to protest the American attacks, torture and killing of Muslims nonstop for over a decade?

Is it because they approve? Or is it because they live under different circumstances than Muslims who do use suicide bombers to protest American terrorism?

So your theory, then, is that Christianity would have been every bit as effective as it has been at turning people into sheep even if it's holy scripture had been "The Little Engine that Could"?[/sarcasm] This doesn't have to be either/or, for chrissakes! It's the combination of the people and the books that's the problem.

The combination of the books and people produces no predictable outcome.

People can use the books to justify feeding the hungry or killing abortion doctors.

The same holds true for the Muslim books.

What does produce a predictable outcome is attacking people, rounding them up and torturing them. People will resist this kind of thing with violence.

And when millions of Muslims have been under attack from the West for decades those people will use the books to attack back.

This is about geopolitics and the violent intrusion of the West into Muslim nations and the response to that intrusion.

Uh huh. When a Muslim governor argues that a Muslim government shouldn't execute its own subjects for blasphemy, his own Muslim bodyguards murder him for blasphemy, and killing him makes them popular with that government's Muslim subjects, and the reason those people have that attitude toward blasphemy and the importance of killing their fellow Muslims over it is that that's just their way of attacking back against the West. Riiight.

You simply dodge the point with this anecdote.

 

[Wiploc]

You show me where I said that!

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

Imagine a conversation like this:

Joe: My car is better than your car.
Sara: How do you figure?
Joe: My car has a white roof.
Sara: But my car has a white roof also, so you haven't actually proved your case.
Nexus: Sara, you are claiming to believe that your cars are exactly as good as each other.

You will need to cry moar before I apologize.

I'm putting you on ignore. Please do not respond to any more of my posts.