Why are so many Muslims violent?

[yankee_doodle]

The present day violence of the Muslims can be traced back to the wrong notion of Jihad with weapons. Jihad had been taught seriously by a few so-called Muslim scholars. They forgot that Jihad was meant to purify the soul, i.e. to suppress the desires of the lower self and be a better man.

no, it’s really traceable to one simple fact. It’s a religion invented by an illiterate goat herder who took a six year old child as a bride, created a violent and perverted hybrid of Judeo-Christianity that brutally subjugates women, turns the lives of its men into a wasted fury of zealous rage, and of course the biggest kicker … over one billion people actually believe this mad-mans story.

I’ll echo Winston Churchill’s sentiments regarding your religion:

That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword — the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men — stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism.

 

[Benadam]

Any religion that sincerely seeks the good of God is valid and can be a means to bring sincere seekers sanctity and salvation.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Any religion that sincerely seeks the good of God is valid and can be a means to bring sincere seekers sanctity and salvation.

I have no doubt that religion is an ample substitute in this world for rational knowledge, but nevertheless when the musings of ancient mythology becomes a threat to peace and stability it needs to be dealt with one way or the other.

 

[Benadam]

I have no doubt that religion is an ample substitute in this world for rational knowledge, but nevertheless when the musings of ancient mythology becomes a threat to peace and stability it needs to be dealt with one way or the other.

Yankee, it’s only the religions who believe in the God of Abraham that have a problem with violence. As I mentioned in a previous post. It’s a dangerous thing to believe that a book is written by God and to be a people the book reveals as chosen to reveal God to the world. The ultimate end is conversion or destruction.

The Jews constructed the archetypes of civilization. Aren’t too attracted to yoyur sister? Think that is instinct of some sort? Nope. Made repulsive by a law enforced by an ancient people without rational knowledge.

But I agree the ultimate end of conversion or destruction can cause a religion to adopt an unbalanced perspective.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee, it’s only the religions who believe in the God of Abraham that have a problem with violence. As I mentioned in a previous post. It’s a dangerous thing to believe that a book is written by God and to be a people the book reveals as chosen to reveal God to the world. The ultimate end is conversion or destruction.

interestingly the Jews don’t suffer from the need to convert the world?

The Jews constructed the archetypes of civilization. Aren’t too attracted to yoyur sister? Think that is instinct of some sort? Nope. Made repulsive by a law enforced by an ancient people without rational knowledge.

I assume it is rational to acknowledge inbreeding produces deficiencies. I’m sure they learned it through observation (and perhaps it wasn’t even Jews who first noticed the nexus between inbreeding and congenital defects).

Back then mythology was the only information available. They didn’t have the advantage of science, and they didn’t understand the historical pattern of mythology.

But I agree the ultimate end of conversion or destruction can cause a religion to adopt an unbalanced perspective.

religion itself causes an unbalanced perspective (because it creates a false premise). Nevertheless myths are more attractive than reality (at least for now and probably the foreseeable future).

 

[staffsgt7]

Yankee, it’s only the religions who believe in the God of Abraham that have a problem with violence. As I mentioned in a previous post. It’s a dangerous thing to believe that a book is written by God and to be a people the book reveals as chosen to reveal God to the world. The ultimate end is conversion or destruction.

The Jews constructed the archetypes of civilization. Aren’t too attracted to yoyur sister? Think that is instinct of some sort? Nope. Made repulsive by a law enforced by an ancient people without rational knowledge.

But I agree the ultimate end of conversion or destruction can cause a religion to adopt an unbalanced perspective.

Jhareck brings up the Hindus, but we must not forget the Shinto religion that motivated the killings in WWII, and also the Communists when they carried out their slaughters that numbered into the millions were non-religious and basically do what our left do and set up men as their idols.

I wonder where people keep getting the idea that the only ones who have committed atrocities are the so called Abrahamic religions. That term is only pushed by the Muslims. Christianity and Judaism never refer to themselves as Abrahamic until the Muslims who are claiming to be a part of them started piping up. And Islam bears no resemblence to those two religions other than some Biblical stories that are mostly screwed up in the retelling of them in the Koran.

In fact, of all these religions I prefer living in a Judeo-Chrisian society and not those other societies. And that is because even though there are always bad men/women who commit crimes their laws are more just in dealing with these criminals. I don’t know that much about Hindu laws so I cannot speak about those. But the history of Jihad against the Hindus tells us a lot. If you read it you will find that not even the Hindus attacked the women and children of the Muslims who were waging almost a continual Jihad against them for centuries. You even find today that the Muslims will kidnap and rape, or force convert and then marry, the girl children while the Hindus do not do that to the Muslim children. There might be an abnormal instance of it, but it just is not done.

I think that what people are doing is trying to find others who have a vile disregard for others and their beliefs other than Islam and it just is not there. Maybe communism comes the closest, but even at that they don’t go out and martyr themselves and their children to kill others, or aim for women and children. They don’t hide behind their women and children either.

Here is a video by Pat Condell that tells us that we should be not be repecting something that gives no respect to others. I find that true. I don’t see the respect or regard for anyone else when they start getting their sharia laws enforced. That is what they want too, to push their sharia laws onto us.

 

[dzheremi]

Anyone of any religion (including the aggressive form of atheism promoted by some) can be violent. The key is not in identifying the propensity (as that exists in ALL of us), but dealing with it. Islam seems impaired in this regard because of various safeguards on its orthodoxy which uphold that the behavior of Muhammad and the “rightly-guided Caliphs” that followed him are to be imitated now and for all time. The more honest among the Muslims have admitted that the sword is integral to the spread and enforcement of Islam. The idea that Islam can or should be peaceful towards non-Muslims (especially those who persist in their “kufr”) is absolutely antithetical to ANY honest reading of the ENTIRE Qur’an, and certainly to the Sunnah and Hadith. An honest reading must also conclude that it isn’t all bad, either, but that it certainly is not commensurate with what is found in Christianity. We need only look at the history of the spread of Christianity, which had spread to all continents known to the old world by the time of its adoption by the Roman Empire in the 380 AD. This spread was peaceful, as the Christians did not have the power of empire to corrode them as Muhammad did within his lifetime. King Ezana of Axum was converted by Syrian monks. Armenia was converted by Bartholomew and Thaddeus (Jude), both apostles of Christ, in the first century AD. Egypt was similarly converted c.42 AD, and the See of St. Mark was established. There was no violence in any of this. Later, violence would come to the world at the hands of colonizers bringing Christianity of a type alien to these people and others, but this does not change the fact that the earliest apostles and evangelizers, the ones who had walked with Christ and certainly knew His teachings better than anyone, spread their message peacefully, and it was not until several centuries after their successful missions that we begin to see violence associated with the spread of Christianity. This is to be contrasted with Islam, wherein the invocations to violence begin to overtake the so-called “peaceful” verses rather early on, well within the time that most Muslims believe included the most orthodox and hence correct Muslims generations.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Anyone of any religion (including the aggressive form of atheism promoted by some) can be violent.

not believing in something cannot be logically viewed as a belief system (it’s a contradiction). Moreover, I don’t know of any atheists that promote a violent aggressive form of anything. If you know of any please … do tell (I’m speaking of modern atheists)?

 

[sedonaman]

How about Stalinists/Maoists/Marxists/communists in general?

 

[staffsgt7]

So, I notice that he has no problem bringing up centuries old issues but doesn’t want the same standards applied to him even though not even one century has passed for the notable atheists that were listed? And the millions that those men have killed is mind boggling. There are some atheists who are killing for their totalitarian atheism too. Kim Jong Il reminds me of one guy.

 

[sedonaman]

I thought about that; perhaps he should have said “post-modern” atheists. Still, communists’ time span ranges from today back to Marx.

 

[dzheremi]

not believing in something cannot be logically viewed as a belief system (it’s a contradiction).

Indeed it can, particularly in its most vociferous forms. Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God; it is the belief in the non-existence of God.

Moreover, I don’t know of any atheists that promote a violent aggressive form of anything. If you know of any please … do tell (I’m speaking of modern atheists)?

I’m not sure what you’d define as modern, but if you read up on the history of communist Albania, you’ll find the official promotion of atheism enshrined in the 1976 constitution. That’s pretty darn recent, anyway.

State atheism was also the norm in the Soviet Union. My old Russian professor often told us stories of her youth in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, when the authorities went so far as to confiscate a phonograph record of “Jingle bells” that a friend sent from abroad, leaving a note in the empty box about “religious propaganda” is not allowed in the country. Almost cute, but things were worse for people who were actually religious…another professor I had who was one of the many Jews who immigrated in the 1970s recalled being blacklisted from all but the lowest jobs and having to worship in secret “home synagogues”, with the fear of being arrested for carrying out religious rites a very real one in light of what regularly happened even to the religious majority, the Orthodox Christian community.

In Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue, the constitution guaranteed freedom of religion (and no religion) but in practice persecuted not only traditional buddhists, but also Christians, native Muslims, and anyone else the atheistically-minded authorities saw as “decadent” or “reactionary”. Edward Kissi’s “Revolution and Genocide in Ethiopia and Cambodia” is a quick and readable study that includes sections on the treatment of religion and religious by the Marxist regimes in what were traditionally very religious societies, if you or anyone else is interested in such things.

Atheism is not the paragon of rationalism and equal treatment that you seem to want to set it up as (I’d say religious pluralism is, but maybe that’s another argument altogether). In the hands of the wrong people, it can be just as restrictive, oppressive, and violent as the worst religiously-motivated repression.

 

[yankee_doodle]

How about Stalinists/Maoists/Marxists/communists in general?

a common argument, but of course it assumes the atheism of these individuals informed their evil actions (a nexus I’ve never seen proven). Furthermore, examining the life of Hitler or Stalin is indeed much more complex than this common refutation of atheism implies. Hitler was raised Roman Catholic, Stalin Eastern Orthodox. Stalin entered the seminary with the initial intent of studying for the priesthood (ironically it was there where he converted to Marxism). Similarly there was a profound religious influence in Hitler’s early life.

While this doesn’t imply a nexus between communism (or fascism) and Christianity, it does illustrate a complex picture. Indeed this common Stalin / Pol Pot / Hitler comparison with atheism is a classic false cause fallacy (and more subtly an ad hominem).

Nevertheless this fallacious logic is pervasive in American society (ironically virtually none of our most prominent founding fathers were Christian, and the man perhaps most instrumental in stopping Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, was probably agnostic). Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were even quite brutal in their attacks against the Christian religion – albeit I don’t think any of these men, who were preoccupied with so many other things, had the level of contempt for Christianity as say someone like Christopher Hitchens. In fact some of these men commonly made public references to divine providence (and some of them even impassioned references to Christian imagery).

Men say and think things for all sorts of reasons. For example even though I’m an atheist I commonly feel aligned with Christians with regard to many issues; and even emotionally aligned when it comes to issues like the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. I imagine many of our politicians are atheists or agnostics (even though they keep up the pretense of Christian faith); and in some cases when they’re working to defend our freedoms, notwithstanding their own skepticism, they can become just as impassioned and enraged (and even emotional when they’re invoking Christian imagery).

The human brain is a complex organism … so these sort of very simplistic (and I would argue quite narrow minded) references have no substantive value (beyond exploiting irrational fear and bigotry).

Anyway I don’t want to derail this thread, so I’ll stop here.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Indeed it can, particularly in its most vociferous forms. Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God; it is the belief in the non-existence of God.

You could probably show me ten books that have influenced your life profoundly; and it’s perfectly possible I might like nine of them.

As to your definition for atheism, it’s incorrect. Atheism is a lack of belief (attaching the prefix “a” indicates a lack of belief or disinterest, not a positive opposing belief). The dictionary defines it simply as:

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

If someone is asexual this means they’re simply devoid of sexuality (or more rarely they lack sexual function or sex organs). They don’t hate sex, they don’t believe sex is bad, evil, or hold any positive belief towards sex. The same with words like apolitical or amoral. Take the latter term, amoral, which is to be neither moral nor immoral (or without moral quality). You simply can’t make a “religion” out of atheism.

So strictly speaking you’re wrong. Nevertheless I may have spoken too quickly when I made my previous comment. I do think in some cases atheism can seem like a religion, or a positive belief system. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it when it does (we certainly have the same right of holding and defending positive beliefs as anyone else does in this country). However, there are some extreme examples where fellow atheists have done things that create the perception of a positive belief system.

For instance suing a veterans group to remove a cross from a small piece of property in the middle of the Mohave Desert. Whether or not there’s a technically valid legal case seems besides the point. Who really cares … and why create so much bad blood just to prove a point (particularly when the object was placed where it currently stands by a WWI veteran to honor – I assume – his fallen comrades).

So I can see where you draw your view from. Furthermore, I also acknowledge many atheists tend to lean left (and tend to advocate more aggressive government intervention into the economy). I think this is unfortunate, since ironically the father of modern market capitalism (Adam Smith) was probably an atheist (or agnostic). I can, however, assure you this isn’t universally true (since I myself hold a strong Laissez-faire position).

 

[yankee_doodle]

I’m not sure what you’d define as modern, but if you read up on the history of communist Albania, you’ll find the official promotion of atheism enshrined in the 1976 constitution. That’s pretty darn recent, anyway.

State atheism was also the norm in the Soviet Union. My old Russian professor often told us stories of her youth in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, when the authorities went so far as to confiscate a phonograph record of “Jingle bells” that a friend sent from abroad, leaving a note in the empty box about “religious propaganda” is not allowed in the country. Almost cute, but things were worse for people who were actually religious…another professor I had who was one of the many Jews who immigrated in the 1970s recalled being blacklisted from all but the lowest jobs and having to worship in secret “home synagogues”, with the fear of being arrested for carrying out religious rites a very real one in light of what regularly happened even to the religious majority, the Orthodox Christian community.

In Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue, the constitution guaranteed freedom of religion (and no religion) but in practice persecuted not only traditional buddhists, but also Christians, native Muslims, and anyone else the atheistically-minded authorities saw as “decadent” or “reactionary”. Edward Kissi’s “Revolution and Genocide in Ethiopia and Cambodia” is a quick and readable study that includes sections on the treatment of religion and religious by the Marxist regimes in what were traditionally very religious societies, if you or anyone else is interested in such things.

Atheism is not the paragon of rationalism and equal treatment that you seem to want to set it up as (I’d say religious pluralism is, but maybe that’s another argument altogether). In the hands of the wrong people, it can be just as restrictive, oppressive, and violent as the worst religiously-motivated repression.

on these points I’ll say simply I agree, it can be just as repressive as religious theocracy, which goes to show oppression doesn’t come from books, theories, or religions. It comes from twisted people.

 

[dzheremi]

As to your definition for atheism, it’s incorrect. Atheism is a lack of belief (attaching the prefix “a” indicates a lack of belief or disinterest, not a positive opposing belief). The dictionary defines it simply as:

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Hey, I can use the internet too. Look:

S: atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
S: atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism

To the extent that it makes very little sense to embrace the second definition without embracing the first as a consequence, I don’t see how it is wrong to say that atheism by necessity involves a positive belief just as much as it involves disbelief. You personally may emphasize more a lack of belief, but since we’re all arguing conjecture anyway, I don’t see why your characterization is any more “right” or “wrong” than mine.

Regardless. I wasn’t actually trying to argue that atheism is a religion, only that all religions AND atheism (which, you’re right, can seem like a religion, and I think can legitimately be argued to be a religion at least in some form, preferably by people who are not me) can be an inspiration for violence in the hands of warped minds.

 

[Jehoshua]

I like to specifically define atheism as such

atheism: The active belief in the non-existence of God

I think that in regards to atheism we need to seperate it from general irreligion and treat it as the active belief in the non-existence of God instead of equating it with simple irreligion.

---

Also just mentioning that we should keep to the original topic, there are plenty of threads on atheism in these forums.

 

[staffsgt7]

I like to specifically define atheism as such

atheism: The active belief in the non-existence of God

I think that in regards to atheism we need to seperate it from general irreligion and treat it as the active belief in the non-existence of God instead of equating it with simple irreligion.

---

Also just mentioning that we should keep to the original topic, there are plenty of threads on atheism in these forums.

Yeah, I agree. It is a very common thing to do though to give excuses for the violence, or other vile things in Islam by starting the bashing of others such as Christianity.

Islam is violent because the laws that govern them allow violence. And those laws are based on the Koran and the Hadith.

Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam has done extensive statistical analysis of the doctrine. These are his findings:

62% of Koran is devoted to how Islam interacts with the Kafir (or, the unbeliever)
98% of the Sira is devoted to the struggle against kafirs.
70% is jihad; 28% is argument and insults.
20% of Bhukari Hadith is devoted to jihad.

Allah and Mohammed hate the kafir. In fact, the existence of kafirs is considered an affront to Allah and Mohammed. In the doctrine of Islam, the believer is required to “fight in Allah’s cause” (jihad) to remove this affront. Jihad is the only guaranteed method by which a believer can go to Islamic heaven and skip judgment. Jihad exists because unbelievers exist.

**Fundamentals of Sharia Law (Islamic Law)**

1.Believers who leave Islam (apostates) are considered among the worst sinners, and can be given the death penalty.
2.Kafirs do not have legal rights under Sharia law.
3.Husbands may beat their wives legally (this follows the Suna of Mohammed).
4.Criticism of any aspect of Islam is considered a high crime of treason, even for those who are not believers, and can result in a death sentence.
5.The practice of homosexuality can result in a death sentence.
6.Adultery by a married person can result in death by stoning.
7. Punishment for petty crimes (i.e., theft) can result in mutilation.
8.No religion other than Islam is allowed.
9.No legal system other than Sharia is allowed.
10.Women must be covered (burka, niqab)
11.Rape victims must produce 4 male (believer) witnesses or be seen as an adulterer.
12.Non-Muslims cannot testify against a Muslim.
13.Jihad is an obligation for all believers.
.

Which explains why there is so much hatred and violence against others. And since they consider all of this the word of their god this is why there is no movement to change Islam from within and it stays a violent ideology.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Hey, I can use the internet too. Look:

S: atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
S: atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism

In some cases atheists are indifferent (the type of people you could know for years & never know what they’re thoughts are on religion), or they could be the type who aren’t ashamed or intimidated by their beliefs.

To the extent that it makes very little sense to embrace the second definition without embracing the first as a consequence, I don’t see how it is wrong to say that atheism by necessity involves a positive belief just as much as it involves disbelief. You personally may emphasize more a lack of belief, but since we’re all arguing conjecture anyway, I don’t see why your characterization is any more “right” or “wrong” than mine.

If it were true in all cases I’d have no problem believing it … but as even the definition you provide points out it could be either affirmative belief in the non-existence of god, or a more passive and simple non-belief in god.

Regardless. I wasn’t actually trying to argue that atheism is a religion, only that all religions AND atheism (which, you’re right, can seem like a religion, and I think can legitimately be argued to be a religion at least in some form, preferably by people who are not me) can be an inspiration for violence in the hands of warped minds.

It should be noted that few if any modern western atheists (or even non-western atheists as far as I can tell) endorse violence on a small scale much less tyranny. I also think there’s a marked difference between intellectual atheism based on logical grounds, and “rebellion based” atheism (meaning people who haven’t given much thought to the substantive question, does god exist and is the bible true, but rather simply like living a certain lifestyle unimpeded by religion).

I was formerly a devout (you could even say something close to fundamental) Christian, who left religion for purely intellectual reasons. I can’t even say I recall any bad experiences with religion (overall my experiences with faith were good). However, in consideration of historical patterns, scientific facts, and numerous other factors … it has become my view that religion is simply untrue

 

[yankee_doodle]

But anyway the original topic, why are Muslims violent? I pretty much agree with Jehoshua’s inference. Islam clearly enumerates a formal system of rules and doctrines that are simply not amenable to western democracy and the concept of tolerance. There’s plenty of individual Muslims out there who are perfectly tolerant of others, but that tolerance demands diluting their Islamic beliefs to a large extent.

While intolerance is probably an inherent part of our human nature, the unique problem with Islam is how truly radical its guiding text (the Koran) is. While the Christian New Testament guides its believers towards pacifism and a sort of “other-worldliness” – the Koran demands a militant fervor and expressly calls its believers to violent action (and not only under rare circumstances as many Muslim apologists contend). While both call its believers to spread the word, the Koran deems it perfectly acceptable to spread the word by force.

We can say while Christian tyranny and theocracy (as seen for instance in the middle ages and prior) was an aberration to the New Testament, embracing democracy and tolerance among Muslims would be an aberration to the Koran. This is not to say it’s not possible that Muslims could come to embrace democracy (indeed I believe all they need to do is taste democracy and they won’t settle for any less).

Just as Jews overwhelmingly walked away from the very dark and dogmatic doctrines of the Tanakh, Muslims can and I think will leave the dark dogma of their Koran behind (or at least I hope they will eventually).