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

[untermensche]

This is a thread about violence, not a thread about bombing. Like pretty much everything else, violence comes in a Gaussian curve; bombers are simply the people way out on the upper tail end of the distribution. So whether and to what extent people set off bombs is quite literally a side issue. The central issue is what effect Islam's teachings have on the mean and the standard deviation. It's not the 0.01% who want to blow up women and children that are in need of explanation; it's the 50%+ who support punishing blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, female disobedience, and on and on. So go ahead, explain how that's the Wests's fault.

The problem when discussing "muslims" with apologists is that the apologists tend to hold up nominally "muslim" or not in the slightest "muslim" as the typical "muslim". The sincere, pious followers of teh islam know what's going on.

How many do you personally know?

I have a good friend who is a devout Muslim. He is the most decent and moral person I know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is nothing but a derail. How about addressing the point?

You're avoiding the point.

If it is religion and not circumstance that drives Muslims to suicide bombings why are there no US Muslims doing it here?

We don't have nearly as many Muslims here, they aren't able to pretty much cut themselves off from the rest of society and thus aren't good targets for the recruiters.

 

[untermensche]

You're avoiding the point.

If it is religion and not circumstance that drives Muslims to suicide bombings why are there no US Muslims doing it here?

We don't have nearly as many Muslims here, they aren't able to pretty much cut themselves off from the rest of society and thus aren't good targets for the recruiters.

Influence from "recruiters" is not religion, it is circumstance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We don't have nearly as many Muslims here, they aren't able to pretty much cut themselves off from the rest of society and thus aren't good targets for the recruiters.

Influence from "recruiters" is not religion, it is circumstance.

Religion is their tool.

 

[untermensche]

Influence from "recruiters" is not religion, it is circumstance.

Religion is their tool.

I can mend a roof or kill a man to rob him with a tool.

 

[bilby]

Religion is their tool.

I can mend a roof or kill a man to rob him with a tool.

Religions don't kill people; People kill people.

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a religion is a good guy with a religion.

If religions are outlawed, only outlaws will have religion.

 

[Sphincterboy]

Well as with any fundamentalist totalitarian prescription for all aspects of society, there will always be those who adhere more vehemently to the true principals than others. As Warpoet seems to allude, which we can all agree, there is an inverse relationship between 'ideas compatible with western secular democracy' and devoutness to any religious ideal, in this case Islam.

 

[Togo]

Well as with any fundamentalist totalitarian prescription for all aspects of society, there will always be those who adhere more vehemently to the true principals than others. As Warpoet seems to allude, which we can all agree, there is an inverse relationship between 'ideas compatible with western secular democracy' and devoutness to any religious ideal, in this case Islam.

No amount of armchair pronouncements about the evils of religion in general, or a religion in particular, can establish either that a diverse group of millions of people are somehow 'more violent' than the norm, or that there is a causal link between this and their choice of religion.

Seriously guys, have we learned nothing from people droning on about the evils of atheism, videogames and MTV? They too produced (to them) sensible and logical connections between a phenomenon that concerned them (the state of the nations youth) and the apparent cause (video games, MTV, atheism, youth culture generally). They used the same arguements, and in some cases the same language, as is being employed in this thread.

Can we agree that they never established that the problem was real, let alone that MTV was the cause? Can we try and aim a bit higher, in discussions like this one?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well as with any fundamentalist totalitarian prescription for all aspects of society, there will always be those who adhere more vehemently to the true principals than others. As Warpoet seems to allude, which we can all agree, there is an inverse relationship between 'ideas compatible with western secular democracy' and devoutness to any religious ideal, in this case Islam.

No amount of armchair pronouncements about the evils of religion in general, or a religion in particular, can establish either that a diverse group of millions of people are somehow 'more violent' than the norm, or that there is a causal link between this and their choice of religion.

Seriously guys, have we learned nothing from people droning on about the evils of atheism, videogames and MTV? They too produced (to them) sensible and logical connections between a phenomenon that concerned them (the state of the nations youth) and the apparent cause (video games, MTV, atheism, youth culture generally). They used the same arguements, and in some cases the same language, as is being employed in this thread.

Can we agree that they never established that the problem was real, let alone that MTV was the cause? Can we try and aim a bit higher, in discussions like this one?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Togo again.

 

[Perspicuo]

Learning.

1) Just like you can learn Islam from your social environment, these people live in the US, where the culture says otherwise.

2) Violence is multifactorial. Militant Islamists are learning violence from their religion in general and from the Qur'an in particular which are provided to them by their learning environment, and all you need is another set of factors from that same learning envirnoment to get a violent Muslim.

Just like with the gun culture. Not all Americans are going to be gun nuts just for living in this country. Or take the homophobia from Evangelical Christianity: it is undeniable that is what that religion preaches, but that doesn't mean every Evangelical Christian is going to be a gay-basher, just as not every Catholic is going to abstain from condom use.

In other words, circumstance.

Put humans in the proper circumstances and some will resort to suicide bombings.

It doesn't matter what their religion is.

The Japanese resorted to suicide attacks when they were desperate and so have many secular nonreligious movements.

Right now we are living in the post US invasion of Iraq world where Muslims have been attacked, killed and tortured in great numbers for over a decade. That is the reason we are seeing an increase in violence from Muslims now.

Well.. "circumstance" makes it sound more random and uncontrollable than it really is. There is a set of identified factors, and thus it imposes itself as an ethical imperative to change them: less Islam (or at least less literal Qur'an) and more love, respect and self-esteem in childrearing, seems to be a good formula.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Well as with any fundamentalist totalitarian prescription for all aspects of society, there will always be those who adhere more vehemently to the true principals than others. As Warpoet seems to allude, which we can all agree, there is an inverse relationship between 'ideas compatible with western secular democracy' and devoutness to any religious ideal, in this case Islam.

Who gets to decide what the "true principles" of a religion are? Are we to assume that a 'literal reading' -- as if that is something that can actually be done -- is what is *true* in a religion? How would religious moderates feel when told that they aren't being true to their religion?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No amount of armchair pronouncements about the evils of religion in general, or a religion in particular, can establish either that a diverse group of millions of people are somehow 'more violent' than the norm, or that there is a causal link between this and their choice of religion.

Again, this is a strawman. Is anybody here saying that a diverse group of millions of Muslims are "more violent" than the norm?

What I have seen said is that the religion and writings of Islam has something to do with the violence that gets done in its name. If Mohammed had been a pacifist instead of a warlord, would we as much of a problem with militant muslims? If the holy book of Islam, hadiths, and words of imams were exclusively about tolerance and peace, and not about killing apostates, etc, would we have as much of a problem with militant muslims?

Seriously guys, have we learned nothing from people droning on about the evils of atheism, videogames and MTV? They too produced (to them) sensible and logical connections between a phenomenon that concerned them (the state of the nations youth) and the apparent cause (video games, MTV, atheism, youth culture generally). They used the same arguements, and in some cases the same language, as is being employed in this thread.

You may have a point if somebody went on a killing spree and explicitly said "Grand Theft Auto made me do this" or if Atheists had manifesto saying "We must kill whoever has an imaginary friend".

 

[Metaphor]

Well, first we need to look at your 50% plus. According to the research you cited, which unfortunately for you I actually read, Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed.

This is nonsense. The majority of the world's Muslims support making sharia law the official law in their country. Of those that believe Sharia should be the law of the land, a substantial portion of them (e.g. over 60% of Afghani Muslims) believe it should apply to non-Muslims.

But even if 100% of people who believed in Sharia law thought it should only apply to Muslims, it would still be morally depraved. One cannot be an apostate if one was not first an adherent -- but of course the children of Muslim parents are regarded as Muslims. Those children don't have a choice to opt out of being a Muslim. They can't opt out of being born, and opting out of the faith is punishable by death.

 

[jab]

ALL totalizing systems of belief that exude a strong certainly about human life, values, and morality, particularly those systems of belief that offer a good afterlife to true believers, lend themselves to supporting extreme, unrelenting and smug violence against actually and putatively bad people and enemies of the true faith. One of the reasons to separate such systems of belief from the levers of power and the means of mass violence.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The majority of the world's Muslims support making sharia law the official law in their country.

Second paragraph in that link:

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.

It is likely inappropriate to assume that when using the phrase "sharia law" we all know exactly what that means to all Muslims.

 

[EPresence2]

Maybe one day Islam will experience a reformation (and another schism) that re-interprets those "voices in the cave" to be what Mohammed first guessed: they were more evil than good. After all, why take the word of someone so young and impressionable (e.g., the child bride)?

 

[Metaphor]

Second paragraph in that link:

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.

It is likely inappropriate to assume that when using the phrase "sharia law" we all know exactly what that means to all Muslims.

Luckily for us, the link explores exactly what it means by asking specific questions about specific situations. For example, whether stoning is appropriate for adulterers.

 

[Togo]

Well, first we need to look at your 50% plus. According to the research you cited, which unfortunately for you I actually read, Muslims support punishing blasphemy, apostasy homosexuality and adultery only within adherants of their own religion. So people who are self-identifying as Muslim should be held accountable if they break Islamic law. In other words, they believed their religion should be policed.

This is nonsense. The majority of the world's Muslims support making sharia law the official law in their country. Of those that believe Sharia should be the law of the land, a substantial portion of them (e.g. over 60% of Afghani Muslims) believe it should apply to non-Muslims.

Please read your own source:
Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land generally agree that the requirements of Islam should apply only to Muslims. Across the regions where the question was asked, medians of at least 51% say sharia should apply exclusively to adherents of the Muslim faith. This view is prevalent even in regions such as South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, where there is overwhelming support for enshrining sharia as the official law of the land.

 

[Metaphor]

This is nonsense. The majority of the world's Muslims support making sharia law the official law in their country. Of those that believe Sharia should be the law of the land, a substantial portion of them (e.g. over 60% of Afghani Muslims) believe it should apply to non-Muslims.

Please read your own source:
Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land generally agree that the requirements of Islam should apply only to Muslims. Across the regions where the question was asked, medians of at least 51% say sharia should apply exclusively to adherents of the Muslim faith. This view is prevalent even in regions such as South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, where there is overwhelming support for enshrining sharia as the official law of the land.

Read my own words. Nothing in what you quote contradicts what I wrote.

I said

Of those that believe Sharia should be the law of the land, a substantial portion of them (e.g. over 60% of Afghani Muslims) believe it should apply to non-Muslims.

But even if zero percent of Muslims thought that Sharia should not apply to non-Muslims, it would still be inhumane to think of having Sharia law govern Muslims. It's barbaric. It applies to you if you happen to be born into a Muslim family, and you cannot opt out.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Second paragraph in that link:



It is likely inappropriate to assume that when using the phrase "sharia law" we all know exactly what that means to all Muslims.

Luckily for us, the link explores exactly what it means by asking specific questions about specific situations. For example, whether stoning is appropriate for adulterers.

And as one might expect of such a large and diverse group of people, there are wide variations in the responses from country to country on the specific questions. So, I think my point about not assuming we know what it means for all Muslims or any individual Muslim is still valid.