# If radical Islam is violent due to culture and not religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741 "2015-09-11T23:24:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/241 "2015-09-13T01:13:07Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Buddhism is pretty shitty towards women. In a traditional Buddhist worldview, women are a sort of black hole of lust which threatens the very stability of humanity, and in some interpretations is responsible for the downfall of humanity. > > Women are denied the highest levels of Buddhism both cosmically and here on Earth. Women cannot achieve enlightenment (some concede they can if they take on a male form.) Being born a woman is considered the result of bad karma, and your best hope is to be reincarnated as a man so that you become eligable to progress spiritually. Buddhist nuns are disallowed from taking the vows men do, they are subject to many special rules and extra restrictions, and they are treated as entirely secondary to monks. In the past, it was required for all nuns to automatically bow to a monk of any rank. > > Buddha himself told women to submit to their husbands, and came up with very precise ideas as to what kinds of wives it was acceptable for a woman to be (fully devoted, of course.) In the modern world, Buddhist sexual exploitation happens all the time, both in the east and the west. > > Buddhist countries today are not great places to be women. They score uniformly low on Gender Inequality Indexes. Some are abysmal (Laos, looking at you.) Buddhist countries have historically and in modern times been perfectly okay with stuff that is bad for women- child marriage, forced marriage, not educating girls, restricting the movement of women, etc. > > I just wouldn’t pick Buddhism as the champion of women’s rights. There is just as musch sexism in Buddhism as there is anywhere else. Could you give me some cites for the idea that women can not be enlightened please? Also, I’d like to point out that 2.500 years ago when Gautama Buddha was around women were considered akin to property or domesticated animals in every culture in the world that I am aware of. What views about women from Gautama exactly are you referring to. Your view of Buddhist sexism does not conform with my experience, though I am not denying that there is oppression of women in many Asian countries (actually, every country in the world but more in some places than in others), but I’ve never seen the stuff you’re talking about in the sutras that I have studied. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/242 "2015-09-13T01:15:58Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Actually, what I think is: > > That the closer and closer you get to a Muslim Theocracy the worse and worse it will get for infidels, atheists, homosexuals, women etc, as in dangerous and oppressive as opposed to merely oppressive. Two points: [ol] [li]So what? There are rather few actual theocracies out there and that observation could be made about any philosophy, religion, or other social organization. The _Khmer Rouge_ did it with communism. Nazis did it with Fascism. If we encountered a “pure” capitalist state, we would likely see the same thing, (with nascent examples from 19th century U.S.).[/li] [li]The second closest thing we have to an active theocracy, Iran, actually is not the worst place. It is hardly good, but, for example, women can vote and still get education and employment. A number of places that are not true theocracies are at least as bad or worse. Your scenario is supported by the absolute theocracy imposed by ISIS, but no Muslim nations are interested in emulating ISIS, not even Iran.[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/243 "2015-09-13T01:25:26Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Could you give me some cites for the idea that women can not be enlightened please? I’m not at home and so don’t have my library handy, but [here are the basics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism#Limitations_on_Women.27s_Attainments_in_Buddhism). ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/244 "2015-09-13T01:41:37Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Buddhism is pretty shitty towards women. In a traditional Buddhist worldview, women are a sort of black hole of lust which threatens the very stability of humanity, and in some interpretations is responsible for the downfall of humanity. > > Women are denied the highest levels of Buddhism both cosmically and here on Earth. Women cannot achieve enlightenment (some concede they can if they take on a male form.) Being born a woman is considered the result of bad karma, and your best hope is to be reincarnated as a man so that you become eligable to progress spiritually. Buddhist nuns are disallowed from taking the vows men do, they are subject to many special rules and extra restrictions, and they are treated as entirely secondary to monks. In the past, it was required for all nuns to automatically bow to a monk of any rank. > > Buddha himself told women to submit to their husbands, and came up with very precise ideas as to what kinds of wives it was acceptable for a woman to be (fully devoted, of course.) In the modern world, Buddhist sexual exploitation happens all the time, both in the east and the west. > > Buddhist countries today are not great places to be women. They score uniformly low on Gender Inequality Indexes. Some are abysmal (Laos, looking at you.) Buddhist countries have historically and in modern times been perfectly okay with stuff that is bad for women- child marriage, forced marriage, not educating girls, restricting the movement of women, etc. > > I just wouldn’t pick Buddhism as the champion of women’s rights. There is just as musch sexism in Buddhism as there is anywhere else. India doesn’t have the greatest track record either. They are IIRC the only country other than the PRC where men outnumber women and women have a slightly lower life expectancy. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/245 "2015-09-13T02:04:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Two points: > > [ol] > [li]So what? There are rather few actual theocracies out there and that observation could be made about any philosophy, religion, or other social organization. The _Khmer Rouge_ did it with communism. Nazis did it with Fascism. If we encountered a “pure” capitalist state, we would likely see the same thing, (with nascent examples from 19th century U.S.).[/li] > [li]The second closest thing we have to an active theocracy, Iran, actually is not the worst place. It is hardly good, but, for example, women can vote and still get education and employment. A number of places that are not true theocracies are at least as bad or worse. Your scenario is supported by the absolute theocracy imposed by ISIS, but no Muslim nations are interested in emulating ISIS, not even Iran.[/li][/ol] What about saudia arbia? afghanistan in 1999? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/246 "2015-09-13T02:12:56Z")
Hey, we’re the Americans! I mean, when have we ever gone to war without a good reason? Well, yeah, Iraq. Well, OK, when have we ever whomped on a small, defenseless neighbor? Oh, right, Granola. Grenadine. That island, they should be grateful it still floats… OK, then, when has America committed genocide on a helpless and despised population? Not in _more than a hundred years!_ Settles _that_! ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/247 "2015-09-13T02:15:58Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > What about saudia arbia? afghanistan in 1999? Al-Qaeda, which gave rise to the Taliban has condemned ISIS and the Saudis hate them as much as we do. Radical Muslims are hardly a united group. Anyway Tom was slightly wrong. Out of the sixty plus Muslim countries in the world only two can be called theocracies, one being Iran, the other being Saudi Arabia. The idea of Muslims wanting a theocracy is a recent idea, deeply unpopular with most and has more to do with the recent history and the brutality of the aggressively secular governments that have prevailed in the area. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/248 "2015-09-13T02:19:16Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I’m not being sarcastic. You really believe that all forms of “extreme applications” of religions will be equally bad? Yep. Every form of theocracy is carcinogenic. Every religion has its shibboleths, and when they have the power to enforce them, they do so violently and fully lethally. If there were a Christian theocracy in the U.S., they’d be killing atheists and homosexuals, and Jews would be compelled to ritual conversion. This has happened when Christians came into total power. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/249 "2015-09-13T02:22:36Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Cite? Err, history ? Muhammad was born in Mecca among a pretty rich family, grew despondent and depressed, then he got Religion, tried to stop the people of Mecca from being materialistic idolaters (Mecca was already a big pilgrimage site back then, and its ruling class made a lot of money off of pilgrims) which caused him to be exiled. He took refuge in Medina with a few True Believers, started preaching, convinced a whole lot of people and gradually took over the city peacefully, even made inroads towards various nomadic clans of herders/brigands across the peninsula (everybody was a herder/brigand out there back then, before you go all judgemental. Hell, so were the “barbarians” who took over Europe around the same time, when it comes right down to it.). Then Mecca launched a military campaign on Medina/Muhammad for growing too much influence and being a threat to their biznatch. Muhammad fought back, got one of those once in a century underdog victories at Badr and ultimately seized Mecca - but he did not slaughter the population ; and in fact reached a compromise with his would-have-been persecutors so that in the end, the big players of the new nation of Islam were the very same Meccan elites he’d fled from then fought against. He even set up a pilgrimage to Mecca all over again, albeit for Islam rather than to visit paganistic idols, thereby preserving the city’s economic livelihood and assuaging the fears of the Meccans. All the Rashidûn caliphs that succeeded him were from wealthy Meccan families (which caused no end of pissed-offry from the Medinan Old Guard, as you can imagine - more on that later). Plucky little Islam then went on to conquer most of Northern Africa, the broken remains of the Sassanid Empire and even took chunks out of Byzantium and Spain - that much is true. But Muhammad was very much dead by then, and ironically enough those conquests were ultimately motivated not so much by greed or a plan for world domination or even Koranic guidance (Allah knows these jokers never expected to go so far so quick and never had any sort of coherent plan for their empire, as evidenced by the ad-hoc patchwork it turned out to be) but more by internal dissensions about Muhammad’s legacy. He didn’t leave any apparent heir and many of the nomadic tribes he’d united across the peninsula through various means (conversion, diplomacy, bribery, promise of phat lewtz…) while he was looking for allies against Mecca were like “whelp our deal was with Muhammad so we’re no longer Muslims now, later fuckwads !” ; while the various groups that still believed in Muhammad’s vision were divided over who should lead next - remember the whole Meccan elites/Old Guard tiff ? It came into play big time at this point. So, all in all, the caliphs of the young state were in a pretty shaky position. And so, they tried to legitimize their authority the only way men knew how back then : by beating up the neighbours. Caesar Augustus did it, Clovis did it, Justinian did it. It worked for the Jews, if you read the OT. Hell, it worked for Napoleon and William of Orange and George Washington too. If you win battles it means you must be doing something right and god’s got your back, right ?! But that’s not Islam, that’s just mankind. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/250 "2015-09-13T02:24:27Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Out of the sixty plus Muslim countries in the world only two can be called theocracies, one being Iran, the other being Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy by any strict definition. The monarchy rules, the clerics serve. For SA to be an _actual_ theocracy, it would have to be the other way around. It has the _trappings_ of a theocracy because it has integrated the clergy into the apparatus of state and has traditionally given them their lead in social engineering. The monarchy has always played a careful balancing act of playing to the clerical class as a pillar of support. But the king could abolish the office of the Grand Mufti tomorrow - they did back in 1969 for example. The clerics are important to Saudi governance, but they do not govern. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/251 "2015-09-13T02:39:17Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy by any strict definition. The monarchy rules, the clerics serve. For SA to be an _actual_ theocracy, it would have to be the other way around. > > It has the _trappings_ of a theocracy because it has integrated the clergy into the apparatus of state and has traditionally given them their lead in social engineering. The monarchy has always played a careful balancing act of playing to the clerical class as a pillar of support. But the king could abolish the office of the Grand Mufti tomorrow - they did back in 1969 for example. The clerics are important to Saudi governance, but they do not govern. On second thought, yeah you’re right. If one uses the traditional understanding of theocracy(rule by the clergy) it’s certainly not. That said, the Saudis themselves would insist it is a theocracy and make a point of pointing to the army swearing allegiance not to the King, but to God though when push comes to shove I’m pretty sure they’d decide their King knows what God wants. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/252 "2015-09-13T02:46:31Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Err, history ? > > Muhammad was born in Mecca among a pretty rich family, grew despondent and depressed, then he got Religion, tried to stop the people of Mecca from being materialistic idolaters (Mecca was already a big pilgrimage site back then, and its ruling class made a lot of money off of pilgrims) which caused him to be exiled… Thank you for that explanation. Explaining it informally was actually very helpful. I have a couple of questions. I am not dismissing or denying you claims, in fact, they seem largely reasonable to me. My questions: 1- It is your contention that in his political and military struggles and armed conflicts/battles/etc Mohammed NEVER harmed a single innocent person in any way? 2- Who is defining what an innocent person is? What is the definition of an innocent person? 3- Did Mohammed call for the deaths of infidels? 4- Did Mohammed ever specifically himself kill an infidel for the crime of being an infidel? 5- Did he ever order the direct execution of such an act? (as opposed to a general order that was not enacted upon at one specific point in time) 6- During his days as a “brigand” how exactly did he conduct his brigandry? were any people killed? Were any people harmed in any way? I am reading your response(es) and taken them quite seriously. Thanks for taking the time to reply. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/253 "2015-09-13T03:04:17Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Thank you for that explanation. Explaining it informally was actually very helpful. I have a couple of questions. I am not dismissing or denying you claims, in fact, they seem largely reasonable to me. > > My questions: > > 1- It is your contention that in his political and military struggles and armed conflicts/battles/etc Mohammed NEVER harmed a single innocent person in any way? > > 2- Who is defining what an innocent person is? What is the definition of an innocent person? > > 3- Did Mohammed call for the deaths of infidels? > > 4- Did Mohammed ever specifically himself kill an infidel for the crime of being an infidel? > > 5- Did he ever order the direct execution of such an act? (as opposed to a general order that was not enacted upon at one specific point in time) > > 6- During his days as a “brigand” how exactly did he conduct his brigandry? were any people killed? Were any people harmed in any way? > I am reading your response(es) and taken them quite seriously. Thanks for taking the time to reply. You keep moving the goal posts. If you’re trying to prove that Muhammad had beliefs that most modern people would disapprove of no one is going to disagree with you. You’re correct and it also applies equally the figures of the Bible who are equally revered to this day by Christians and Jews. It does nothing to substantiate your rather foolish claims about Islam being so much worse than Jews and Christians or your special pleading for Christians. Why this specific obsession with Islam? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/254 "2015-09-13T03:08:23Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Why this specific obsession with Islam? IDK really, but it keeps growing in proportion to your particular obsession as to whether or not I have a PhD… ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/255 "2015-09-13T03:22:24Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > No, actually, all of that is irrelevant. > > For example, I don’t have to be an expert in American History or Military Science or have a PhD in Ethics to declare that Andrew Jackson was bad person because he mistreated the Native Americans, specifically, that he made treaties with them during the war of 1812, because he needed their help against the British, promising them safety and protection and allegiance after the war. He broke, as far as I know, all of these promises. If not all of them then definitely most. You can google Indian Removal Act or Trail of Tears if you have any question as to the validity of my claims. > > I don’t know the details of any of the battles, or treaties, or the exact number of Native Americans who died or were displaced. But I don’t need to know all of that to know that he was a no good, traitorous, lying son of a bitch. Who was proudly know as “a man of the people” and “an Indian Fighter”. > > Or are you going to make the absurd claim that because I don’t have a PhD relevant to the subject that somehow makes Jackson’s treachery any less evil? This is a truly bizarre answer. I didn’t ask for you to tell us about your academic history because of your comments about Muhammad. You insisted that Thomas Aquinas’ claims that the torture and execution of heretics was consistent with Jesus’ message was irrelevant and you knew better is shockingly arrogant. To this day he is one of the most widely regarded Christian theologians and it takes a huge set of balls to claim to know better than him. It’s like claiming you have a better understanding of theoretical physics than Stephen Hawking. For your hypothetical to be more accurate you’d have to be claiming something more like you knew more about Andrew Jackson and could better judge his legacy than his most widely regarded biographer. Furthermore, I didn’t even ask you to provide your qualifications to question Aquinas’ understanding merely commented that you might want to provide them if you were going to do so. You were the one who said you’d provide them if I answered a question on Muhammad and Jesus. I did, so now please keep your promise and give the answer you said you would. What ancient languages can you read and write in? Where did you go to college, what was your major, and what was the highest degree you received? How widely read are you on Christianity and how it was understood by Christians over the past 2000 years? I’m not doing this to try and embarrass you and if you refuse I won’t pursue it, but considering how repeatedly this thread you’ve been shown to know little about Bhuddism, Islam, and Christianity you might want to rethink your certainty in your own understanding of the situation. Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/256 "2015-09-13T03:23:49Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > IDK really, but it keeps growing in proportion to your particular obsession as to whether or not I have a PhD… Well, that’s a dodge a dodge with all the grace and deftness of a three-legged rhino. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/257 "2015-09-13T03:30:45Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I’m not being sarcastic. You really believe that all forms of “extreme applications” of religions will be equally bad? You do recognize the word “extreme,” right? I have a suggestion. Rather than digging in your heels and insisting on the legitimacy of your _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_ fallacy, why don’t you go and actually review the histories and interactions of several different religions, studying the history of Islam, in particular, to see whether the actual history of the last 1400 years comes close to matching your odd, speculative claims for the future? (And rather than reading Islamaphobic idiots such as David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, or Robert Spencer, find some legitimate sources for your information.) You will still be free to hate religion, but at least when you post in a debates forum, you will not look like you brought a squirt gun to an artillery duel. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/258 "2015-09-13T03:32:07Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > . . . It is your contention that in his political and military struggles and armed conflicts/battles/etc Mohammed NEVER harmed a single innocent person in any way? . . . Why do you even bother to ask such a dumb question? Of course not. No one has said that. No one has even come within four light-years of saying that. “Is it your contention that toenails make a good salad topping?” Hey, just asking questions, right? Even Jesus doesn’t live up to this standard: he whipped the merchants out of the Temple. He used a physical whip. He harmed innocent people! ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/259 "2015-09-13T03:36:55Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > This is a truly bizarre answer. > > I didn’t ask for you to tell us about your academic history because of your comments about Muhammad. > > You insisted that Thomas Aquinas’ claims that the torture and execution of heretics was consistent with Jesus’ message was irrelevant and you knew better is shockingly arrogant. > > To this day he is one of the most widely regarded Christian theologians and it takes a huge set of balls to claim to know better than him. > > It’s like claiming you have a better understanding of theoretical physics than Stephen Hawking. > > For your hypothetical to be more accurate you’d have to be claiming something more like you knew more about Andrew Jackson and could better judge his legacy than his most widely regarded biographer. > > Furthermore, I didn’t even ask you to provide your qualifications to question Aquinas’ understanding merely commented that you might want to provide them if you were going to do so. > > You were the one who said you’d provide them if I answered a question on Muhammad and Jesus. > > I did, so now please keep your promise and give the answer you said you would. > > What ancient languages can you read and write in? > > Where did you go to college, what was your major, and what was the highest degree you received? > > How widely read are you on Christianity and how it was understood by Christians over the past 2000 years? > > I’m not doing this to try and embarrass you and if you refuse I won’t pursue it, but considering how repeatedly this thread you’ve been shown to know little about Bhuddism, Islam, and Christianity you might want to rethink your certainty in your own understanding of the situation. > > Thanks in advance. I will answer all your questions as soon as you supply a single passage where Jesus advocates torture ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/260 "2015-09-13T03:37:13Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > What about saudia arbia? afghanistan in 1999? Saudi Arabia, (home of Wahhabism) is still not a theocracy. Afghanistan had been. So, theocracy remains rare and sometimes it even goes away. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=14)