Does Islam drive homophobic violence?

There are so many groups for the reason we saw in Monty Python’s Life of Brian: they can’t even get along with each other, and keep splitting up into smaller and smaller groups. It’s the same reason there were so many Irish terrorist groups during the troubles: they aren’t competent to coordinate themselves into a coherent strategic union.

ISIS tried to be a major umbrella group to unify a bunch of smaller groups. Isn’t working; they’re internally fractured, just like the Palestinians…or the Christians.

You just denied it below by referring to their behavior as an interpretation.

I disagree. I think it matters greatly what their prophets specifically say and do. Islam has an exponential number of terrorist groups compared to any other religion. It’s not rocket science to connect the behavior of these groups to the behavior and laws of Mohammad.

There’s nothing hypocritical about what I said. The Christian prophet didn’t write down the dogma you profess. Not one line. The Muslim prophet specifically codified down every aspect of life and included a legal system to back it up. It’s the blueprint for the terrorist acts we see today. They’re applying the “what would Mohammad do” litmus test and they have his writings to base it on.

:rolleyes:. I wasn’t aware SDMB had a grammar moderator. I’ll try to care even less in the future.

That explains the lack of control withing the umbrella of Islam and I said as much years ago. But it doesn’t explain the number and intensity of terrorist attacks.

According to interpretation of the peaceful Muslims, the actions of terrorists are entirely prohibited by the Quran, and they are the ones misinterpreting the Quran. I don’t accept that ISIS’s (and your) interpretation is better or more accurate than that of peaceful Muslims.

For a variety of historical, cultural, and economic reasons (including the extreme and radically violent interpretation of Islam by some groups). You’ll notice that the most violent Christian groups (like the Lord’s Resistance Army) are concentrated in Africa – especially the poorest parts. If we could magically eliminate that sort of extreme poverty and hardship, the vast majority of this violent extremism would disappear – comfortable people usually won’t risk their lives for fanatical ideological reasons. It wouldn’t totally disappear, and maybe much of the ‘rump’ of violent extremists/terrorists left over would be Muslims, but the vast majority of terrorism today is connected much more closely to dynamics of power and wealth than to dynamics of religion.

And where is that religion today? Are they chucking gay people off roofs or stoning them for leaving the religion because they’re not fond of high places?

I live in a country where making fun of Christianity is an Olympic Sport. And that’s the way we like it. Heck I can buy a “Virgin Mary” toaster at the local art institute gift shop. A tasty miracle every morning for breakfast.

I put Luther squarely in the center of the changes in the Christian religion. Islam has not made that leap yet. It’s the religion of peace as long as you subscribe to their news letter and considerably less so if you don’t.

“Yet.” So, you do accept that it has to do with interpretation and context, and is not intrinsic to the faith itself. Great. That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you all along. Nice that you’re finally on board.

it’s not misinterpretation to follow Mohammad’s express instructions. I’m sure the religion is peaceful as all get out when you don’t break any rules.

Your argument is flawed. it doesn’t explain why other religions in similar social economic situations aren’t knee deep in terrorists. It doesn’t explain why countries like Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden have the highest percentage of people joining ISIS. It doesn’t explain the “lone wolf” attacks in the US.

No, I do not accept it’s a function of interpretation. Islamic terrorists are following the express instructions of Mohammad. At best it’s a function of the less violent ignoring specific laws. Mohammad isn’t some schmuck in the Old Testament. He’s the main character in the religion and he codified the word of God. Apparently Jesus was too lazy to do it so he’s a minor cog in their religion.

Under what circumstances do see this changing? Do you think they’ll suddenly break out singing cumba-allah in Mecca during Ramadan? The religion was constructed around the idea of a caliphate.

The terrorists violate Muhammad’s express instructions, according to the peaceful Muslims. I don’t accept that your interpretation, which matches that of ISIS, is more accurate than theirs, which interprets the Quran as outlawing terrorist attacks.

Incredibly poor or otherwise dysfunctional majority Christian countries, like many in Africa and central and South America, actually do have tons of violent extremists and terrorists.

My argument explains most terrorism, but not every single instance. For some very small percentage, including some lone wolf attacks, ideology and extremist religious beliefs may be solely to blame.

This is also true for some small amount of the extremists in every religion.

When virtually all Muslims interpret the Quran and Muhammad’s instructions as expressly outlawing terrorism, as peaceful Muslims already do.

Your argument doesn’t explain any of the terrorism in the United States or most of it around the world.

I have GOT to stop hitting “View Post”…

I am waiting for any evidence that you understand that your question is baseless. Christianity bases much of its teaching on Judaism, (the Judaism of which Jesus is quoted as saying “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.”), and that Judaism did include laws calling for the execution of (male) homosexuals. Paul of Tarsus expressed his opposition to homosexual behavior–broadening the objection from male/male homosexuality to female/female homosexuality.

British law was based on the understanding of one group of Christians looking to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Note that Henry VIII’s Buggery Act was based on religious belief and brought a crime that had been handled ecclesiastically into the civil courts.

You are cherry picking your “evidence” in order to support your own odd beliefs that have little to nothing to do with reality–either in religion or history.

Utterly false. The killing of innocents was prohibited by Mohammed.

Terrorism is the result of people who perceive themselves to have been subjected to overwhelming outside forces using asymmetrical violence to establish their points. It is not confined to Muslims, but appears to be related to Islam because the overwhelming number of people who believe (generally correctly) that they have been so oppressed beginning in the 19th century happen to have been Muslim.

I disagree. The larger point is that the interpretation of peaceful Muslims, that terrorism is expressly outlawed by the words of Muhammed, is just as valid as the interpretation of ISIS, and you.

Why is selective admission of immigrants tantamount to fascism? It seems that the US already does this to some extent. Bigoted US citizens cannot be deported because they often hold no other citizenship (and thus there is nowhere to deport them to), and in any case their right to bigotry is protected by the first amendment to a large degree, leaving education as the only viable way to combat their ideology. However, neither of the above objections applies to incoming immigrants, who typically do have a country to return to and who, as far as I understand, do not enjoy first amendment protection. I think that the majority of Americans would agree with, at the very least, the statement that “gays and other gender/sexual minorities may not be physically attacked for their way of life.” Why would it be wrong to deny entry to those who do not hold this view? What advantage does a country gain by allowing such people entry? I understand the fear of another “red scare” leading to unjust oppression and immigration laws, but would a fundamental commitment to nonviolence not be a reasonable bar to set?

You’re stepping over the bodies of thousands of people killed in the name of Islam.

You keep using the word “interpretation” for the literal words of Mohammad.

And you act as if there is the line in the sand with peaceful Muslims who believe one thing and radical Muslims who believe something else.

Which side is The Islamic Society of North America on? They’re all over the map. They’ve been to the White House to discuss violence against homosexuals yet here are quotes from one of it’s members:

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the ISNA said: “Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption… No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.”"

In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot’s people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery.

Allah Most High says: “Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives that Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress” Koran (26:165-66)

(1) The Prophet (saws) said: (1) “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets if be done to him.” (Tirmidhi, a sahih (authentic) hadith)

There are many “literal words of Mohammed”, some of which some Muslims interpret to expressly outlaw terrorism.

All reading, including reading that proclaims to be literal, is still interpretation, especially when there are so many words that may seem to conflict directly with each other.

And yet, somehow, American Muslims are significantly more tolerant of homosexuality than American Mormons and evangelical Christians.

Which just goes to show the power of interpretation.

And you are blaming the victims of sectarian violence in your deep desire to promote an a belief that is not supported by evidence.