Muslims have to answer question of violence... really?

[manualman]

OK I hope I’ve understood and I sort of see what you mean by idea and religion… though that wasn’t my point since I’m saying the conceptual cannot interfere physically with the physical. Anyway… You’ve made this judgement, for example the emotive ‘butchered’ used. It is fair to criticize constructively, however Muslims and non Muslims would disagree and say you are mistaken. Muslims then are imitating something other than what you claim.

Yes, because they are inherently decent human beings and NEED to explain away Muhammed’s actions. They got that way because they were created in the image and likeness of God and were attracted to the teachings of Islam that ARE decent and holy and are doing their best to ignore the less savory aspects of Islamic teaching. IMO, that’s why muslims are generally decent people on the whole. But the fact that there ARE unsavory and destructive teachings within Islam does have a negative effect on Islamic culture as a whole.

Aside from the problems of violence that Allah allegedly endorses via Muhammed, Islam views God as far more innately inscrutable than does Christianity. This affects the entire Islamic worldview and leads to the common phenomenon in the muslim world of shrugging at surprising occurences and saying (Insha Allah - it’s God’s will, who knows why). Christianity, on the other hand, understands that humans got our ability to reason from God and that God’s inherent rationality infuses creation. So in spite of western civilization suffering the loss of ancient learning and the fall of Rome to barbarians while the Islamic world inherited the intellectual riches of all the cultures they conquered, Islamic scholarship and science eventually stagnated while the west caught up and surpassed them.

Ideas and principles matter are EXTREMELY important in the path of a society and civilization. This is precisely why Christians are so alarmed at the adoption of so many bad ideas and principles in our modern culture and the uncritical assumption that all cultures are of equivalent value (an idea your post seemed to illustrate).

 

[JHow]

This whole thread turns on the OP’s linguistic “rigor” in objecting to the application of the adjective “violent” to an inanimate antecedent, followed by a long series of “tu quoque”.

Thought that precedes violence is certainly pertinent to consider, else why do we have a distinction between first and second degree murder?

Tu quoque is a well known fallacy, but really, produce the Christian suicide bombers shouting “God is Great” and you might start to have a point.

 

[manualman]

When the principal guiding manual of a religion was brought about in a manner of force, perhaps it comes as no surprise that force which obviously begets violence would become a normal feature in the life of that religion.

I’m not so sure about that one. Christianity itself had plenty of early claimants to Scripture status that were examined and discarded. There are critics today (Elaine Pagels, for example) that assert your very argument against Christianity - that the bishops of the day condemned and suppressed competing visions of Christianity via coercion. Nearly every house has a bible, but when was the last time you saw a copy of the “gospel” of Thomas? (it ain’t a gospel, but claims to be). From our understanding, Christ established a church with authority so that authority could discern truth from falsehoods and distortions. From Pagels’ point of view, the bishops were just thugs who used their power to suppress threats to the version of Christianity that validated Holy Orders and undergirded their power. It’s a very secular view of faith that reduces God to an impotent observer.

My point is that it is a weak argument to assert that the Quran is not reliable since it was formed over a period of dispute and suppression of weaker claimants to Scripture status. That argument either proves too little (as noted above) or it proves too much (in which case it disproves the bible as well). It’s better to critique the content of Islamic teaching.

 

[spring01]

This is my view on Islam.
The religion is not finely structured. They believe that the Book is directly from God, thus, they are required to swallow every word of it, even if they do not truly understand the meanings. I now some muslims who only can recite the arabic verses without knowing the meaning of the words at all.
They also like to take just the good verses and to ignore the rest as if it never exist. But, if you try to learn the whole things, there are many contradictions and some verses do not make sense at all.
So, since they cannot really understand their own Book, thus their own religion, and they cannot rationally defend their belief, the only way to pass on / spread out their religion is by using the power of fear. So, naturally Islam is not violent, but in practice, they have to become one to defend themselves and to exist.

 

[dronald]

Both arguments from both sides are using fallacious logic.

No, Islam is not a violent Religion anymore than the number “seven” is a violent number. However, the text in Islam is more likely to inspire violence than the text in the Bible. I’ll go back to my argument that was overlooked because it wasn’t fallacious.

Name in history a Pope, Bishop, Priest or Pastor calling for violence and being able to quote the New Testament in the process. As I said, Muslims quote the Qur’an and Hadith while carrying out violence. Recent examples of this would be the Boston bombing and Lee Rigby being butchered while Surah 9 in the Qur’an was quoted. I can post many links of Imams calling for violence against Jews and Christians while quoting Muhammad’s words and the Qur’an.

That is the difference.

 

[manualman]

Both arguments from both sides are using fallacious logic.

No, Islam is not a violent Religion anymore than the number “seven” is a violent number. However, the text in Islam is more likely to inspire violence than the text in the Bible. I’ll go back to my argument that was overlooked because it wasn’t fallacious.

Name in history a Pope, Bishop, Priest or Pastor calling for violence and being able to quote the New Testament in the process. As I said, Muslims quote the Qur’an and Hadith while carrying out violence. Recent examples of this would be the Boston bombing and Lee Rigby being butchered while Surah 9 in the Qur’an was quoted. I can post many links of Imams calling for violence against Jews and Christians while quoting Muhammad’s words and the Qur’an.

That is the difference.

I’m either not following you or you’re refuting yourself. You claim that Islam is not a violent religion. Then you claim that the Quran is inclined to inspire violence.

Perhaps you are continuing to argue that religious principles cannot be violent, only implementation of them can. I hope you aren’t arguing that! If that’s your frame of reference, then you must also claim that communism isn’t a violent ideology. If that still sounds right to you, some reading of Solzhenitsyn is in order…

To ordinary folks, it is reasonable to say that communism is an innately violent ideology. It’s impolite to say it bluntly, but if the Quran and the life of Muhammed are the essence of Islam, then Islam is at least partially a violent ideology as well.

 

[Reuben_J]

Both arguments from both sides are using fallacious logic.

No, Islam is not a violent Religion anymore than the number “seven” is a violent number. However, the text in Islam is more likely to inspire violence than the text in the Bible. I’ll go back to my argument that was overlooked because it wasn’t fallacious.

Name in history a Pope, Bishop, Priest or Pastor calling for violence and being able to quote the New Testament in the process. As I said, Muslims quote the Qur’an and Hadith while carrying out violence. Recent examples of this would be the Boston bombing and Lee Rigby being butchered while Surah 9 in the Qur’an was quoted. I can post many links of Imams calling for violence against Jews and Christians while quoting Muhammad’s words and the Qur’an.

That is the difference.

If you can’t find one in history, at least there is one in a movie. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo starring Daniel Craig where a series of murders were committed based from the verses of the Book of Leviticus.

 

[Peace_of_cake]

This whole thread turns on the OP’s linguistic “rigor” in objecting to the application of the adjective “violent” to an inanimate antecedent, followed by a long series of “tu quoque”.
Thought that precedes violence is certainly pertinent to consider, else why do we have a distinction between first and second degree murder?
Tu quoque is a well known fallacy, but really, produce the Christian suicide bombers shouting “God is Great” and you might start to have a point.

Thanks for all the contributions I haven’t got time to engage with or in fact read them all at present. This post did catch my eye. Yes JHow I think perhaps I am using a tu quoque argument. My basic argument is not denying violence per se but rather pointing out that there is a hypocrisy in arguments put forward to ‘prove’ it. Hugh Goddard makes this point in his excellent book Christians & Muslims from double standards to mutual understanding. Yes there are double standards from Muslims too. The discussion of is there more room for violent interpretations is worth discussion, but that is something else at present. Can we all agree that ‘Islam is violent’ is a total misnomer first before proceeding? And that Muslims are little more inclined to violence then any other human even if we admit some slight increase among Muslims?
One thing someone mentioned about Muslims generally being non violent IN SPITE of their religion is somewhat unnerving I think. Empirical evidence suggests non violence, but no the correct interpretation is violence (to put it rather clunkily) sounds like prejudice to me; we’ve already decided whatever they do!? Again is our personal interpretation the valid one, ignoring Muslim ones? No it doesn’t seem fair or right

 

[Peace_of_cake]

If you can’t find one in history, at least there is one in a movie. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo starring Daniel Craig where a series of murders were committed based from the verses of the Book of Leviticus.

I was a little surprised to see this as anti Catholics often point to Catholic atrocities, there are quite a few things agains Urban II, Innocent III and Gregory IX. Yes you’ve mentioned Leviticus and of course the sword statement of Jesus etc. In an underhand manner we could put the Church in a very bad light. Is this not the case with Qur’anic interpretations? OK why not?

 

[Reuben_J]

I was a little surprised to see this as anti Catholics often point to Catholic atrocities, there are quite a few things agains Urban II, Innocent III and Gregory IX. Yes you’ve mentioned Leviticus and of course the sword statement of Jesus etc. In an underhand manner we could put the Church in a very bad light. Is this not the case with Qur’anic interpretations? OK why not?

Have you seen the movie?

 

[dronald]

I was a little surprised to see this as anti Catholics often point to Catholic atrocities, there are quite a few things agains Urban II, Innocent III and Gregory IX. Yes you’ve mentioned Leviticus and of course the sword statement of Jesus etc. In an underhand manner we could put the Church in a very bad light. Is this not the case with Qur’anic interpretations? OK why not?

Again, you’re saying Christians have killed in the name of Christianity. But can you show where such Christians are quoting the NT while doing such. “The sword thing” or Leviticus. Did any Pope ever quote passages and twist them to make others do evil?

 

[ffg]

Talk about baiting.

Wouldn’t a more appropriate discussion be about the fringe / extreme elements of Islam vs the extreme ends of other religions?

There are card carrying good people in all religions.

The extreme though is typically more in tune with peace / conservatism.

In the case of Islam, one side of extremist are hateful people who hide behind the veil of religion. They think they have an excuse in religion to be hateful and violent (aka terrorists).

If Islam doesn’t teach hate and violence, there should be mass amounts of Islam leaders being very loud about kicking the extremists out and informing them that what they think will happen being martyrdom is really eternity in hell / their place of eternal pain.

 

[Didascalia]

Muslims have no monopoly on violence. Most of the trouble we see in the world today has its roots in secular European Colonialism. Most of the people who have died violent deaths in the past 100 years, died at the hands of white non-muslim Europeans. I will not claim that these people acted like Christians, but the vast majority were baptized so! Islamists are simply the Muslim worlds fascists, communists and colonialists. Ultimately all violence will have to be “answered for”, and I don’t mean to mere earthly government!

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Again, you’re saying Christians have killed in the name of Christianity. But can you show where such Christians are quoting the NT while doing such. “The sword thing” or Leviticus. Did any Pope ever quote passages and twist them to make others do evil?

Again I’m not sure why you are saying this? Firstly it doesn’t really work does it? Maybe its a category error? Muslims using the Qur’an is not like Christians using the NT is it? As Catholics the Magisterium is more authoritative than scripture. Also I’m not sure why you specify the NT particularly? What role does the OT have in your view? To be honest I do not think your views here would be representative of Church history as if we reject the OT in totality, as you are implying, because its embarrassing or the like then is this not what the Muslims were criticised for just now?
Some years back I looked into the history of heresy, unfortunately my memory is a bit hazey now. A certain paranoia of heresy and its taint on the community is apparent from St Paul through all the church fathers and right into medieval Christendom. Jerome is famous for commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says (Catena Aurea): “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.” We have Augustine’s commentary of ‘And the Lord said to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in [compelle intrare], that my house may be filled.’ [Luke 14:23] to justify coercion. And Aquinas in the Summa re-iterating that “…by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.” This thinking is very much the life blood of the Church and burning and torture was quite a common fate of heretics. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century [NB unofficially in use a millenia earlier]. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.” And from this the Crusade against the Cathars and so forth… Its interesting reading
Anyway, I’m not sure really what you’re trying to say and why its really relevant?
Perhaps we should focus on the Qur’an as that is where the objection seems to be coming from. Perhaps you may wish to comment there?

 

[Peace_of_cake]

If Islam doesn’t teach hate and violence, there should be mass amounts of Islam leaders being very loud about kicking the extremists out and informing them that what they think will happen being martyrdom is really eternity in hell / their place of eternal pain.

Good points The sad thing is, is that the ulama (learned) are very vocal, but they do not get a lot of press. The general view is that these ‘terrorists’ are like that of the khawarij (secedes) of antiquity and have left the fold of Islam; denying the expilict verse that to take a life is to kill all humanity. Sh Tahir ul Qadri has a fatwa stamped by al Azhar (Muslim vatican if you like) that has been translated into many languages including English, you can easily find it online and he has an accompanying youtube video. The fact is, these ‘terrorists’ are a new phenomenon and not in any way the norm or even a notable minority in Islamic history.

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Muslims have no monopoly on violence. Most of the trouble we see in the world today has its roots in secular European Colonialism. Most of the people who have died violent deaths in the past 100 years, died at the hands of white non-muslim Europeans. I will not claim that these people acted like Christians, but the vast majority were baptized so! Islamists are simply the Muslim worlds fascists, communists and colonialists. Ultimately all violence will have to be “answered for”, and I don’t mean to mere earthly government!

Excellent points Think you’ve summed up the main problem. Western funded forced modernisation at break neck speed caused resentment and the ready made Marxist model was there as a modern answer to materialistic forces… so convenient as it required no thinking of an Islamic solution. So the primary problem are the ‘Islamists’ of a Marxist ideology with an Islamic facade. A lot of the negative modern policy of the US and Europe towards the Middle East was more aimed that stemming the tide of communism rather than Islam per se. Put it in these terms and Muslims are with you, attack their religion and they are not!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I am interested in any history of a Pope calling for violence and quoting Scripture… or anyone doing so for that matter.

Think about Lee Rigby’s butcher while he quotes Surah 9. He was most likely referring to Surah 9:29 that calls to fight us until we pay a tax with willing submission. A passage in the Qur’an with no historical context.

I’m interested in the thought process you used to arrive at the conclusion that random Islamist terrorist holds the same authority as the Pope. As for anyone doing so, do some research into John Brown (not Catholic, but since the particular sub-branch of Islam a particular person belongs to apparently doesn’t matter than I assume the particular sub-branch of Christianity a person belongs to also doesn’t matter). There are also some self professed “Christian” warlords who base their immoral actions on their particular take on a passage from Scripture in Africa you can research as well.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Talk about baiting.

Wouldn’t a more appropriate discussion be about the fringe / extreme elements of Islam vs the extreme ends of other religions?

There are card carrying good people in all religions.

The extreme though is typically more in tune with peace / conservatism.

In the case of Islam, one side of extremist are hateful people who hide behind the veil of religion. They think they have an excuse in religion to be hateful and violent (aka terrorists).

If Islam doesn’t teach hate and violence, there should be mass amounts of Islam leaders being very loud about kicking the extremists out and informing them that what they think will happen being martyrdom is really eternity in hell / their place of eternal pain.

The problem with that (referencing your last paragraph) is how Islam is structured. How effective have the various Baptist sects in the US been in getting the WBC to stop it’s behavior? Not very since the WBC is still doing what they do. How effective do you think a non-US Baptist sect or the Church would be in getting the WBC to stop it’s behavior? I’d assume even less effective than the US Baptist sects. So, if the various Christian sects can’t get the WBC to stop what they are doing, do you really think it’s reasonable to expect the various Islamic sects (which as a whole are even less centralized than the various Christian sects I mentioned above) to get sects that are more than happy to murder others (i.e. they are more extreme than the WBC) to stop what they are doing?

 

[SteveVH]

How are you measuring this? I guess I will when you answer me why Christian Serbs massacred Muslim Bosnians in the early to mid 90’s.

The Christian Serbs were acting in violation of Church teaching and Church law and the Church denounced them for their atrocities. I don’t hear the same from organized Islam speaking out against the atrocities committed by Muslims. That’s the difference.

 

[SteveVH]

There are also some self professed “Christian” warlords who base their immoral actions on their particular take on a passage from Scripture in Africa you can research as well.

Would you mind giving us a name to aid in the research? Who are these Christian warlords?