# 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:** 56
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1102 "2015-10-08T11:46:45Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Evangelicals only represent ~13% of Christians worldwide I do not care. I live in the [Bible Belt](https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=bible%20belt&oq=bible%20belt&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3537j0j7). I was raised in the Bible Belt. I am sure a lot, lot, lot, more than 13% of the people in this town are Evangelicals. Bible Belt: The Bible Belt is an informal term for a region in the south-eastern and south-central United States in which socially conservative evangelical Protestantism plays a strong role in society and politics, and Christian church attendance across the denominations is generally higher than the nation’s average. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1103 "2015-10-08T11:49:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > If only 13% of a group consider X to be true then you can’t say X is central to that group or a teaching of that group, can you ? Yes, you can, if it is in fact what the book says. If it is what - the book - says, you can most definitely say it is a central teaching of that religion. If it says it - in the book - what else would you call it — but — a central teaching? ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1104 "2015-10-08T11:55:35Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > He instituted the principle of _dimmah_, by which religious minorities within the lands of Islam would be allowed to practice their faith, visit their pilgrimage sites, keep their temples and so forth unimpeded, provided they paid for the privilege and didn’t make too much of a fuss. > Which, I’ve already told you, was a damn sight better than anybody else did at the time. This is a very commonly stated bit of propaganda from the Islamic public relations handbook, but it is not supportable. Mo preached his new religion in Mecca for an entire decade before he was run off. He gave no other religion nearly as much tolerance once he was in control of the city. Go there now and preach some paganism. See if you can get away with it for ten minutes, let alone ten years, then tell me about Islam’s religious tolerance. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1105 "2015-10-08T11:56:11Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Wow. So technical. Parse is the word I think I’m looking for. (I had to look up parse, then I had to look up syntax… yes, parse is the word I’m looking for). I meant “Hey guys, don’t start any more wars, ever, for no reason… don’t ever — start — a war. If they come to your town/city/country to attack you, defend yourself, but never, for any reason, take the battle beyond your city gates.” (He was the leader of a city state, right?). Did he ever say that, you know, all specific and syntactically correct and whatnot. He advised the use of violence in self-defense. That doesn’t mean that you can only fight defensive _battles_, it means you only fight those who’ve attacked you. Winning a war without counter-attacking is somewhere between “very difficult” and “impossible”. To tie it back to my earlier analogy, the U.S. was perfectly justified in attacking the Japanese Empire, they were not morally limited to hunkering down in Pearl Harbor and waiting for the next strike. > [@](#): > > And what about those who don’t surrender? If you’re fighting a losing battle and don’t surrender, you’re probably going to get killed or injured. Non-pacifists generally don’t have a problem with this. > [@](#): > > Is it? People here, the apologists, reject the idea that the march of Islam across North Africa was theocratic, that, it was just regular political expansion. I’d say it is a mixture of both. That’s certainly possible - the fervor of the new convert is powerful stuff. If you’re claiming that non-Muslims were exterminated, though, I’ll need a cite for that. > [@](#): > > Yes, 100%. He could of decided to be a simple sheep herder instead. > > Sheep herder? Significantly less violent. If he was rich he could of bought — a lot — of sheep. I simply don’t know what to say to this…it’s so far removed from my moral reasoning that you may as well be speaking a different language. Suffice it to say, I don’t consider it morally wrong to become a leader of people, nor morally right (in and of itself) to avoid all conflict of any kind. My moral influences (Kant, mostly) don’t hold that view. > [@Robert163](#): > > I sense a yeah but coming… > I think the more apt analogy, if we are going to parse words, would be soldiers who make civilian raids during times of war. You just admitted: they attacked Meccan caravans, and I’m sure that not every Meccan on every caravan was personally involved in persecuting or killing Muslims. > > Could we please do a little bit better with our analogies??? I don’t know if the civilian/combatant distinction existed at the time, nor do I know enough about the makeup of the 7th-century caravan to say whether they would be considered civilian targets in the modern sense. > [@](#): > > No, he could of chosen to be a sheep herder and never involved himself in local power struggles. This is what a peaceful individual does when surrounded by a sea of chaos and violence. (Assuming they had the money to by a lot of sheep, which, he did. Also, if you want to substitute some other non violent vocation in place of sheep herder, go ahead.) Again, this is totally alien to my moral sense…you may as well be arguing for eating every third baby, so as to ensure larger fruit (to paraphrase _Rick and Morty_). All I can do is stare, and try to fathom the distance between our worldviews. > [@](#): > > I guess the rules about sex slaves. I’ll try and look this up for you if you really really truly do not believe what I am about to say (an account of what I previously read) I’ll try and look it up for you. > > Basically, from what I recall, Mohammed encouraged, heavily, freeing of male slaves. He specified that only those captured in war or born of a slave can be a slave. So in that regard he was - somewhat - better than his contemporaries. > > But his comments on sex slaves were quite different. Those comments mainly consisted of, things like, should you brag about your sex slaves in front of your wife, does your sex slave have to follow any command you give her, as opposed to, do they have to follow any command of any one in your household or any guests in your premises. You know “really tough, hard hitting questions” that show Mohammed’s deep regard for women as a category of people. Sure, I’ll read what you find, but I won’t take your word for it, based on how you’ve presented other surahs. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1106 "2015-10-08T11:58:53Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Evangelicals only represent ~13% of Christians worldwide although they’re rapidly growing in central Africa, where US-based missionaries have been super active over the past few decades. For better or worse… > > If only 13% of a group consider X to be true then you can’t say X is central to that group or a teaching of that group, can you ? This is in [Alabama](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Go_to_church....jpg). It’s from the wikipedia page for bible belt. On I-75, half an hour south of here, I’m sorry I don’t have the picture but I swear it is true, I saw a sign that had Jesus and an attack helicopter on it. It said “God is in Charge”. I am not making this up. There were 4 or 5 like this spread over a 10 mile stretch of the highway. The one I mentioned was the most offensive. Most offensive I say… they were all pretty offensive, but, no two signs were the same. Before you get ready to say whatever it is you are about to say, think about this: How much do you think it costs to rent a billboard on the busiest highway in Georgia? Even, “way out in the country” it’s probably not going to be cheap, is it? Now, think about renting 4 or them. I’d say that means people around here are pretty heavily invested in their brand of “Evangelicalism”. I’d say your figure of 13% is pretty much meaningless in a town like this. I am starting to get REALLY annoyed at all the apologetics on this thread. Religion - is - a force for good in many places. Just not in Alabama or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1107 "2015-10-08T12:08:47Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Well, I’m sure it would, if your goal is to defend Islam. That’s not my goal. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1108 "2015-10-08T12:12:47Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > He advised the use of violence in self-defense. That doesn’t mean that you can only fight defensive _battles_, it means you only fight those who’ve attacked you. Winning a war without counter-attacking is somewhere between “very difficult” and “impossible”. To tie it back to my earlier analogy, the U.S. was perfectly justified in attacking the Japanese Empire, they were not morally limited to hunkering down in Pearl Harbor and waiting for the next strike. Why do you keep talking about Japan??? > [@](#): > > Winning a war without counter-attacking is somewhere between “very difficult” and “impossible”. Ah, yes, of course. But why did Mohammed - need - to go to war? Why did he - need - to evangelize his religion? Why did he - need - to be the head of a city state? To ask the question in a alternate manner, how many less people would of died if Mohammed had used his considerable wealth and influence to raise sheep or raise camels? How many — less — people would of died if he had chosen a more peaceful path for his life? He get’s no “they were violent times” excuse for making - that - choice. I bet it would be like, a whole whole whole lot less dead people, right? PS- Why do you keep talking about Japan??? > [@](#): > > Sure, I’ll read what you find, but I won’t take your word for it, based on how you’ve presented other surahs? Other Surahs? Everything I’ve present has been from [here](http://quran.com/about). It looks pretty unbiased to me. So, if I do find the passages you are looking for, what is going to be your reaction: 1- Oh, you see Robert, LOT’S of people had slaves back then, even sex slaves, in fact… 2- Yes, Robert, you are correct, Mohammed was and is an evil son of a bitch and deserves every single bit of criticism you are giving him. Because I am not going to go to the trouble to find them for you if your answer is going to be number 1… ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1109 "2015-10-08T12:15:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s not my goal. well, good for you ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1110 "2015-10-08T12:18:32Z")
**Robert163** , here’s why I think you’re wrong about Islam and Mohammed – if Islam and Mohammed were inherently worse and more violent and more oppressive, in terms of the religious text and teachings and practices, then other religions, then throughout world history since Mohammed’s life Muslim regions would have been always or almost always significantly more violent and more oppressive than Christian (and other) regions. This is very obviously false, and very easy to prove – through the centuries, there were long periods of time in which Muslim regions were not just more peaceful and less oppressive than Christian regions, on average, but _waaaaay_ more peaceful and less oppressive than Christian regions. There were also times in which the reverse was true. Do you acknowledge this, that there were long centuries in which, on average, Muslim regions were much, much better (in terms of violence and oppression) than Christian regions? If so, then why do you think this was? How were these Muslims, who certainly considered themselves as devout as any Muslims today, able to act in a much more peaceful and less oppressive manner as citizens and as leaders than the contemporary Christians of other parts of the world at the time? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1111 "2015-10-08T12:25:49Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I simply don’t know what to say to this…it’s so far removed from my moral reasoning that you may as well be speaking a different language. Suffice it to say, I don’t consider it morally wrong to become a leader of people, nor morally right (in and of itself) to avoid all conflict of any kind. My moral influences (Kant, mostly) don’t hold that view. Doesn’t Kant Believe that things are inherently right or wrong? Like slavery, banditry, starting a war because you want their land or they have a different religion than you… an aggressive war… doesn’t Kant say some things are simply right or wrong and any reasoned person will realize this? You don’t get the excuse of socialization or peer influence or the particular era you live in? It is either, right, or, wrong. Isin’t that one of the major tenets of the concept of the [Categorical Imperative](http://www.britannica.com/topic/categorical-imperative)? Categorical imperative Kant, Immanuel [Credit: The Granger Collection, New York] in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a moral law that is **unconditional or absolute for all agents** , the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end. I very well could be wrong. But I had the strong impression kant had strict ideas about right and wrong and “other people engaging in group think” is not an excuse to do the wrong thing, is it? I’m not actually “attacking” this part of your comments. I’m actually interested in learning more about kant… ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1112 "2015-10-08T12:34:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **Robert163** , here’s why I think you’re wrong about Islam and Mohammed – if Islam and Mohammed were inherently worse and more violent and more oppressive, in terms of the religious text and teachings and practices, then other religions, then throughout world history since Mohammed’s life Muslim regions would have been always or almost always significantly more violent and more oppressive than Christian (and other) regions. > > This is very obviously false, and very easy to prove – through the centuries, there were long periods of time in which Muslim regions were not just more peaceful and less oppressive than Christian regions, on average, but _waaaaay_ more peaceful and less oppressive than Christian regions. There were also times in which the reverse was true. > > Do you acknowledge this, that there were long centuries in which, on average, Muslim regions were much, much better (in terms of violence and oppression) than Christian regions? If so, then why do you think this was? How were these Muslims, who certainly considered themselves as devout as any Muslims today, able to act in a much more peaceful and less oppressive manner as citizens and as leaders than the contemporary Christians of other parts of the world at the time? (Thank you for your response, by the way.) Yes, of course, of course I do. I really really honestly do acknowledge that is correct. But the inverse is also true. (Inverse - opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect.) If there are peaceful periods then there are also violent periods. If it was all one big uninterrupted peaceful period, form inception to the present day, you wouldn’t be talking about periods of peace and harmony. The only thing you would be allowed to say, grammatically, historically, linguistically, factually, etc etc, was to describe it as a peaceful religion. How were they able to act peacefully during these times? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, not, at this exact specific moment. How were they able to act peacefully during those periods?: 1- By ignoring the violent commands set forth in the Koran by Mohammed/Allah. 2- By ignoring the violent example that was Mohammed’s actual, real, factual life. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1113 "2015-10-08T12:36:40Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > 2- You don’t have to actually - do anything - to get into heaven except “accept Jesus in your heart”, in other words, you don’t have to actually do anything… The New Testament has a verse [here](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/2.14?lang=eng#13) and another one [here](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/2.17?lang=eng#16) that disagree with you. It really would be nice for you to quit using the the word _fact_ to describe your incredibly ignorant and astoundingly wrong opinions, but I’m not holding out any hope on that score. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1114 "2015-10-08T12:40:45Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > The New Testament has a verse [here](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/2.14?lang=eng#13) and another one [here](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/2.17?lang=eng#16) that disagree with you. > > It really would be nice for you to quit using the the word _fact_ to describe your incredibly ignorant and astoundingly wrong opinions, but I’m not holding out any hope on that score. The New Testament says lots of things, many of which contradict each other, so go ahead, pull out all of the nice little sunshine and roses verses that you want. The harder you do this, the more you insist that I am wrong, the more you actually vindicate my position. Now, if the New Testament was ALL sunshine and roses, lolly pops and unicorns, etc, then you WOULD be correct and I - would - be as stupid and biased and whatever else you want to call me. But, it’s not all sunshine and roses, is it, **Monty**? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1115 "2015-10-08T12:42:06Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > (Thank you for your response, by the way.) > > Yes, of course, of course I do. I really really honestly do acknowledge that is correct. > > But the inverse is also true. (Inverse - opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect.) > > If there are peaceful periods then there are also violent periods. If it was all one big uninterrupted peaceful period, form inception to the present day, you wouldn’t be talking about periods of peace and harmony. The only thing you would be allowed to say, grammatically, historically, linguistically, factually, etc etc, was to describe it as a peaceful religion. > > How were they able to act peacefully during these times? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, not, at this exact specific moment. How were they able to act peacefully during those periods?: > > 1- By ignoring the violent commands set forth in the Koran by Mohammed/Allah. > > 2- By ignoring the violent example that was Mohammed’s actual, real, factual life. This is fine, but it doesn’t support any argument that Islam is _worse_ than Christianity or other religions. One could say the same for the times of ‘peaceful’ Christians – they ignored the violent commands from the Bible, and ignored the violent example of God. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1116 "2015-10-08T12:42:41Z")
QUOTE=Robert163;18753796]The New Testament says lots of things, many of which contradict each other, so go ahead, pull out all of the nice little sunshine and roses verses that you want. The harder you do this, the more you insist that I am wrong, the more you actually vindicate my position. Now, if the New Testament was ALL sunshine and roses, lolly pops and unicorns, etc, then you WOULD be correct and I - would - be as stupid and biased and whatever else you want to call me. But, it’s not all sunshine and roses, is it, **Monty**? [/QUOTE] Who said it was “all sunshine and roses”? I’m merely pointing out your stunning ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1117 "2015-10-08T12:44:56Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > The New Testament has a verse [here](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/2.14?lang=eng#13) and another one [here](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/2.17?lang=eng#16) that disagree with you. > > It really would be nice for you to quit using the the word _fact_ to describe your incredibly ignorant and astoundingly wrong opinions, but I’m not holding out any hope on that score. > [@](#): > > Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Wow, gee, thanks!!! Thanks for quoting one of the most obvious contraindications in the WHOLE ENTIRE BIBLE as if you were actually explaining something to me that I didn’t already know. Can you do me a favor, **Monty** can you get the Christians to actually start following this scripture? ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1118 "2015-10-08T12:46:38Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > The New Testament has a verse [here](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/2.14?lang=eng#13) and another one [here](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/2.17?lang=eng#16) that disagree with you. > > It really would be nice for you to quit using the the word _fact_ to describe your incredibly ignorant and astoundingly wrong opinions, but I’m not holding out any hope on that score. But when moderators like Tom spout incredibly stupid and wrong opinions it gets a pass. Why? Because he is deflecting criticism of beliefs sacred to people who are often brown? That is the real bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1119 "2015-10-08T12:48:31Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > QUOTE=Robert163;18753796]The New Testament says lots of things, many of which contradict each other, so go ahead, pull out all of the nice little sunshine and roses verses that you want. The harder you do this, the more you insist that I am wrong, the more you actually vindicate my position. > > Now, if the New Testament was ALL sunshine and roses, lolly pops and unicorns, etc, then you WOULD be correct and I - would - be as stupid and biased and whatever else you want to call me. But, it’s not all sunshine and roses, is it, **Monty**? > [@](#): > > Who said it was “all sunshine and roses”? I’m merely pointing out your stunning ignorance. Well, what you say and what are true are pretty far apart. In other words, I was already aware of the faith/works contradiction. So, I’m not sure why you are calling me ignorant. I suspect, however, it is because it pleases you to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1120 "2015-10-08T12:51:55Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1121 "2015-10-08T13:00:54Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Why do you keep talking about Japan??? The Pacific War is one that almost everyone I’ve spoken to agrees was morally justified (the remainder being pacifists). So, since much or your argument is tied to war itself being always wrong, it’s handy to make comparisons to the Pacific War to test your convictions. If you _are_ a pacifist, that’s different, of course…but it remains unclear whether you are or not. You haven’t self-described as one. > [@](#): > > Ah, yes, of course. > > But why did Mohammed - need - to go to war? Because he and his followers had been robbed, ejected from their home, and some of them had been killed. If that’s not a _casus belli_, I don’t know what is. > [@](#): > > Why did he - need - to evangelize his religion? Because he believed that the message he was spreading was divine, and necessary for the salvation of man. There’s nothing immoral about preaching ideas to others, so long as they aren’t compelled to listen. The freedom to speak one’s ideas is a human right. > [@](#): > > Why did he - need - to be the head of a city state? What was the alternative? He left Mecca with his followers in tow…should they have died in the desert? > [@](#): > > To ask the question in a alternate manner, how many less people would of died if Mohammed had used his considerable wealth and influence to raise sheep or raise camels? How many — less — people would of died if he had chosen a more peaceful path for his life? He get’s no “they were violent times” excuse for making - that - choice. > > I bet it would be like, a whole whole whole lot less dead people, right? I’m sorry, but to me that’s just a morally bankrupt approach to take. You can say that about anyone who ever upset the status quo - Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, _anyone_. No one is morally obligated to refrain from spreading ideas that others might not like, and which might cause a violent backlash. The immorality lies with _those who carry out the violent backlash_, not with someone who peacefully spreads new ideas. A moral agent is only responsible for his or her own actions. > [@](#): > > PS- Why do you keep talking about Japan??? See above. > [@](#): > > Other Surahs? Everything I’ve present has been from [here](http://quran.com/about). It looks pretty unbiased to me. Yes, but you present them sans context, and argue against their plain-text meaning. > [@](#): > > So, if I do find the passages you are looking for, what is going to be your reaction: > > 1- Oh, you see Robert, LOT’S of people had slaves back then, even sex slaves, in fact… > > 2- Yes, Robert, you are correct, Mohammed was and is an evil son of a bitch and deserves every single bit of criticism you are giving him. > Because I am not going to go to the trouble to find them for you if your answer is going to be number 1… Well, I’m not going to call Mohammad evil, because I don’t believe in evil and I don’t think in those terms. There’s plenty to criticize Mohammad for (though a lot less if you judge him by the standards of his era rather than today’s); I’ll add this sex-slave business to the list if it pans out. > [@Robert163](#): > > Doesn’t Kant Believe that things are inherently right or wrong? Like slavery, banditry, starting a war because you want their land or they have a different religion than you… an aggressive war… doesn’t Kant say some things are simply right or wrong and any reasoned person will realize this? > > You don’t get the excuse of socialization or peer influence or the particular era you live in? It is either, right, or, wrong. > > Isin’t that one of the major tenets of the concept of the [Categorical Imperative](http://www.britannica.com/topic/categorical-imperative)? > > Categorical imperative > > Kant, Immanuel [Credit: The Granger Collection, New York] in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a moral law that is **unconditional or absolute for all agents** , the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end. > I very well could be wrong. But I had the strong impression kant had strict ideas about right and wrong and “other people engaging in group think” is not an excuse to do the wrong thing, is it? > > I’m not actually “attacking” this part of your comments. I’m actually interested in learning more about kant… Yes, Kant provides a framework, based on reason, for evaluating whether an action is moral or immoral. “Being a leader of people” doesn’t fail the categorical imperative, and neither does “engaging in any violence whatsoever”. Further, it provides no support for the idea that the morally correct course during violent or chaotic times is to retreat to a sheep ranch (farm?) and avoid all conflict. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=55) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=57)