# 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:** 65
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1282 "2015-10-27T11:54:16Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > No, they’re like Stormfront in that they’re both filled with unreasoning bigotry and old, false accusations against a specific religious group. > > What a steaming load of bullshit this is. > > First he says that the Taliban who shot Malala were simply following what their religion dictated, completely ignoring the fact that Malala herself was and still is a devout Muslim and is also simply following what her religion dictates. In other words, just like every other Islamophobe, he puts himself firmly on the side of the Taliban and against the very people he claims to be supporting, by asserting that the Taliban are the only “proper” Muslims and people like Malala are doing their own religion wrong by not also supporting what the Taliban supports. > > Second, he attempts to ridicule the notion that the Taliban are misinterpreting and taking things out of context by himself misinterpreting and taking things out of context! The doctrine of _naskh_ was not developed by the “propagators” of Islam, but was developed centuries later as part of inter-_madh’hab_ legal conflicts (and the “commands preaching violence” were not all chronologically after the “commands of peace”). He also doesn’t seem aware that, in _naskh_, it was often the case that a peaceful command abrogated a violent one, such as the command to release or ransom prisoners (Q 47:4) abrogating the Sword Verse (Q 9:5) in some _tafsir_. > > The Qur’an also does not ask “true believers” to cut the fingertips off of anyone - the verse itself explicitly says it was God telling angels who were divinely intervening in the Battle of Badr to do that. It also doesn’t tell Muslims to never be friends with Christians and Jews. It says Muslims should not become clients of them under [the patronage system that was common in Arabia at the time](http://www.amazon.com/Patronate-Patronage-Classical-Islamic-Civilization/dp/9004144803) and should not make common cause with those who persecute them and drive them from their homes, but explicitly says (in Q 60:7-9) that Muslims can certainly have friendly, affectionate relations with nonbelievers otherwise. you forgot about [these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18807164&postcount=1269) ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1283 "2015-10-27T11:57:59Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > No, they’re like Stormfront in that they’re both filled with unreasoning bigotry and old, false accusations against a specific religious group. > > What a steaming load of bullshit this is. > > First he says that the Taliban who shot Malala were simply following what their religion dictated, completely ignoring the fact that Malala herself was and still is a devout Muslim and is also simply following what her religion dictates. In other words, just like every other Islamophobe, he puts himself firmly on the side of the Taliban and against the very people he claims to be supporting, by asserting that the Taliban are the only “proper” Muslims and people like Malala are doing their own religion wrong by not also supporting what the Taliban supports. > > Second, he attempts to ridicule the notion that the Taliban are misinterpreting and taking things out of context by himself misinterpreting and taking things out of context! The doctrine of _naskh_ was not developed by the “propagators” of Islam, but was developed centuries later as part of inter-_madh’hab_ legal conflicts (and the “commands preaching violence” were not all chronologically after the “commands of peace”). He also doesn’t seem aware that, in _naskh_, it was often the case that a peaceful command abrogated a violent one, such as the command to release or ransom prisoners (Q 47:4) abrogating the Sword Verse (Q 9:5) in some _tafsir_. > > The Qur’an also does not ask “true believers” to cut the fingertips off of anyone - the verse itself explicitly says it was God telling angels who were divinely intervening in the Battle of Badr to do that. It also doesn’t tell Muslims to never be friends with Christians and Jews. It says Muslims should not become clients of them under [the patronage system that was common in Arabia at the time](http://www.amazon.com/Patronate-Patronage-Classical-Islamic-Civilization/dp/9004144803) and should not make common cause with those who persecute them and drive them from their homes, but explicitly says (in Q 60:7-9) that Muslims can certainly have friendly, affectionate relations with nonbelievers otherwise. What about the [right hand](http://quran.com/4/24) and what it possess? What apologetics are you going to apply to this passage? ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1284 "2015-10-27T13:34:33Z")
I think you merit a response when any sign of learning begins to become apparant. After the 26 pages only superficial flailing and true scottish arguments. I think a manicure is better use of time than pouring water into the sand for any flower to blossom. ---
**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 27, 2015, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1285 "2015-10-27T13:42:00Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > you forgot about [these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18807164&postcount=1269) That you’re _still_ claiming that 9:5 is a general instruction to kill all unbelievers, after _extensive_ posts holding your hand and walking you through the context of that passage, is disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1286 "2015-10-27T13:47:24Z")
I learned the phrase here, [the Gish gallop.](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish+Gallop) It seems to apply en grosso modo here with the idée fixe… ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1287 "2015-10-27T15:11:49Z")
The Koran clearly commands the killing of non-believers\*: “If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” \*Oh, wait, this is from the Bible. Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1288 "2015-10-27T16:05:46Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > The history of the expansion of Islam is often presented by Islamists and apologists in the same revisionist manner. Let’s just save time by repeatedly cutting and pasting the following: Person A: Islam is an exceptionally violent religion, and that’s why all Muslims either are terrorists or support terrorism. People B: Other religions are equally violent, and most Muslims are neither terrorists nor support terrorism. Person A: You don’t think any Muslims have ever done anything bad! You’re an apologist! Person B: \ ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1289 "2015-10-27T17:11:34Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > What about the [right hand](http://quran.com/4/24) and what it possess? What apologetics are you going to apply to this passage? What about the passage I posted from the Bible that calls for killing non-believers? And many others in the Bible? My point is that it’s utter nonsense to think you understand a religion just from reading its text. ---
**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 27, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1290 "2015-10-27T17:52:12Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > No, they’re like Stormfront in that they’re both filled with unreasoning bigotry and old, false accusations against a specific religious group. > [@](#): > > What a steaming load of bullshit this is. > > First he says that the Taliban who shot Malala were simply following what their religion dictated, completely ignoring the fact that Malala herself was and still is a devout Muslim and is also simply following what her religion dictates. What do you mean he is _ignoring_ the fact? > [@](#): > > In other words, just like every other Islamophobe, What you are doing here is using an accusation of Islamophobia as a moral shield to deflect perfectly legitimate criticism of your religion. Khuldune is a Muslim who lives in a Muslim majority country. His friends and family are Muslim. He risks his life to promote reform, to lessen the damage done by Islam as it exists today. He is one of the bravest authors alive today, and for you to try to brush aside these criticisms using accusations of bigotry is an act of deep intellectual cowardice. > [@](#): > > he puts himself firmly on the side of the Taliban and against the very people he claims to be supporting, by asserting that the Taliban are the only “proper” Muslims No, he does not. Not even close. Nowhere does he say that the Taliban are following the only true version of Islam. In fact [he says the exact opposite](http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2015/06/eye-on-tahirul-qadri-author-of-counter.html): > [@](#): > > The ‘Islamic Curriculum on Peace and Counter Terrorism’ can basically be summarised as the now ubiquitous apologia that ISIS ‘has nothing to do with Islam’, which is the laziest counter-terrorism argument that one can come up with. > > To call it a reformist effort would be to reduce the long impending Islamic reformation to a couple of hours’ worth of Google search, during which one can find countless articles using ‘context’ and ‘misinterpretation’ to excommunicate Islamist terrorists. > > Ironically this replicates radical Islamists’ favourite vocation: apostatising anyone with a different take on Islamic scriptures. > > The reforms that we Muslims need is to accept that ISIS’ Islam is just as authentic a version of Islam as any other. > > For literalism is another of the ‘multiple interpretations’ of Islam that we like to expound. Islamic reformation, thence, would mean revisiting our approach to the infallibility of Islamic scriptures, without conjuring apologia for ‘true Islam’, and accepting the idea that a Muslim can unapologetically condemn Islamic doctrines. > > Anyone who peddles the concept of ‘true Islam’ – just like any other religion – no matter how peaceful and tolerant their version of Islam might be, inadvertently gives credence to the likes of ISIS. > > For if there is a ‘true’ version, what’s stopping the radicals from believing that theirs is the one? > > The monopoly of truth of any version of Islam needs to be replaced with the spread of plurality in Islam and the Muslim world, and accepting humanist, sceptic and revisionist Muslim identities, with varying stance on scriptural adherence. > > Instead of excommunicating the radicals, and scrutinising the legitimacy of their actions through religious scriptures, true reform would mean giving humanistic ideals preference over any and every interpretation of Islam. > > This in turn would ensure that the only acceptable version of Islam would be the one that is pluralistic and tolerant anyway. > > If one believes that ‘true Islam’ actually is peaceful, tolerant and endorses pluralism, then there’s no better way to propagate it than challenging the very idea itself. > > Just like with other religious communities, reform among Muslims will be brought about only by scrutinising religious scriptures, not by shielding them from criticism. > [@](#): > > Second, he attempts to ridicule the notion that the Taliban are misinterpreting and taking things out of context by himself misinterpreting and taking things out of context! The doctrine of _naskh_ was not developed by the “propagators” of Islam, but was developed centuries later How does this make them not propagators? > [@](#): > > as part of inter-_madh’hab_ legal conflicts (and the “commands preaching violence” were not all chronologically after the “commands of peace”). They were not ALL? So what? You are not addressing his arguments in the slightest here. Do you understand this? > [@](#): > > He also doesn’t seem aware that, in _naskh_, it was often the case that a peaceful command abrogated a violent one, such as the command to release or ransom prisoners (Q 47:4) abrogating the Sword Verse (Q 9:5) in some _tafsir_. He does not seem aware? Why? Because he does not include every exception that exists in _some_ tafsir? Nonsense. You are displaying a blatant double standard here, where any criticism of Islam must meet some impossible standard of completeness, while the opposite criteria is applied to apologia. > [@](#): > > The Qur’an also does not ask “true believers” to cut the fingertips off of anyone - the verse itself explicitly says it was God telling angels who were divinely intervening in the Battle of Badr to do that. Regardless of how you try to justify it, it is still provocative language, which is what he is claiming here. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1291 "2015-10-27T18:19:37Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That you’re _still_ claiming that 9:5 is a general instruction to kill all unbelievers, after _extensive_ posts holding your hand and walking you through the context of that passage, is disgusting. Well, show me where Mohammed says it is not. Do that and then feel free to lecture and chastise. Until then, perhaps you could keep such rude remarks too yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1292 "2015-10-27T18:25:19Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > What about the passage I posted from the Bible that calls for killing non-believers? And many others in the Bible? Even if you are right, which i am not saying you are, but even if you are right and the bible is just as barbaric, wicked and savage as the Koran: THIS IS NOT A GOOD DEFENSE OF THE KORAN… it would simply be a condemnation of religion in general. > [@](#): > > My point is that it’s utter nonsense to think you understand a religion just from reading its text. No, it’s utter nonsense to think you can understand it apart from the text. The text is the word of god (according to them). Divine authority. Divine Authority has only one accounting. ONLY one source. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1293 "2015-10-27T18:27:18Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Let’s just save time by repeatedly cutting and pasting the following: > > Person A: Islam is an exceptionally violent religion, and that’s why all Muslims either are terrorists or support terrorism. > > People B: Other religions are equally violent, and most Muslims are neither terrorists nor support terrorism. > > Person A: You don’t think any Muslims have ever done anything bad! You’re an apologist! > > Person B: \ \*\*Exactely. \*\* This is a pointless exchange. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1294 "2015-10-27T18:40:47Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > The doctrine of _naskh_ was not developed by the “propagators” of Islam, but was developed centuries later as part of inter-_madh’hab_ legal conflicts (and the “commands preaching violence” were not all chronologically after the “commands of peace”). Well then this means some commands for violence came after commands for peace > [@](#): > > He also doesn’t seem aware that, in _naskh_, it was often the case that a peaceful command abrogated a violent one, such as the command to release or ransom prisoners (Q 47:4) abrogating the Sword Verse (Q 9:5) in some _tafsir_. well then this negates the idea you have that Islam is not violent: _it was often the case that a peaceful command abrogated a violent one_ You’ve just admitted 2 things: there are violent passages in Islam, and, they are often - not - discarded. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1295 "2015-10-27T18:56:22Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > What you are doing here is using an accusation of Islamophobia as a moral shield to deflect perfectly legitimate criticism of your religion. Khuldune is a Muslim who lives in a Muslim majority country. His friends and family are Muslim. He risks his life to promote reform, to lessen the damage done by Islam as it exists today. He is one of the bravest authors alive today, and for you to try to brush aside these criticisms using accusations of bigotry is an act of deep intellectual cowardice. I don’t care who he is, I care what he has written. And what he has written there is a load of nonsense which is basically a regurgitation of all the usual Islam-hating talking points spewed by the likes of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Daniel Pipes. > [@](#): > > No, he does not. Not even close. In that article you linked to, he certainly does. He basically goes to some lengths to justify the Taliban’s version of Islam as legitimate, and accuse Muslims who reject their interpretation as “apologists” who refuse to acknowledge that the Taliban are scripturally justified (and in fact asserts that Muslims who refuse to accept the “violent” parts of scripture that the Taliban use as justification are basically wrecking their entire religion). > [@](#): > > Nowhere does he say that the Taliban are following the only true version of Islam. In fact [he says the exact opposite](http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2015/06/eye-on-tahirul-qadri-author-of-counter.html) I’m not a fan of Qadri’s vicious animosity towards the Ahmadiyya (to say the _least_), nor of his support for Pakistan’s blasphemy law and his role in its expansion (which was intended by him to specifically target the Ahmadiyya). But that article is also bullshit: whatever his faults when it comes to Pakistan’s blasphemy law, he’s an honest and active campaigner against all forms of terrorism carried out in Islam’s name, and such a relentless promoter of interfaith understanding that his Deobandi enemies have given him the derisive nickname of “Tahrir-ul-Padri” (“Padri” being the Urdu loanword for a Christian priest). The particular video linked to and talked about in that second article is actually a railing condemnation of the murder of Salman Taseer for the latter’s opposition to the blasphemy law. Qadri was furious that self-appointed vigilantes were carrying out assassinations of those accused of blasphemy, and the screenshot in the article was from a part of the video where he was giving his bona fides as someone who could condemn such murders because he was involved in Zia-ul-Haq’s expansion of the law, in a “only Nixon could go to China” way. > [@](#): > > How does this make them not propagators? Because at that point it already _was_ propagated; it was developed right in the middle of lands that had been Muslim for centuries at that point, and was directed at and discussed among other Muslims. > [@](#): > > They were not ALL? So what? So his assertion that the Qur’an is violent (and Islam is violent) because the later “violent verses” all replace the earlier “peaceful verses” per his boneheadly wrong understanding of _naskh_ is total crap. > [@](#): > > You are not addressing his arguments in the slightest here. Do you understand this? Uh, no, I’m directly addressing them: he made claims about the chronology of verses in the Qur’an and the use of _naskh_ regarding their verses, and I’m showing you quite clearly how he was wrong. > [@](#): > > He does not seem aware? Why? Because he does not include every exception that exists in _some_ tafsir? Because he makes a blanket assertion as if those _tafsir_ don’t exist. Meaning either he is unaware of them (in which case he’s not knowledgeable enough to talk about the subject, especially not as authoritatively as he does), or he _is_ aware of them and deliberately refused to mention or acknowledge them, which makes him a flat-out liar. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1296 "2015-10-27T18:59:39Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Well then this means some commands for violence came after commands for peace Yes, and? > [@](#): > > well then this negates the idea you have that Islam is not violent: It’s certainly not more violent than Christianity or Judaism. You know, like I’ve said _multiple times already in this very thread._ > [@](#): > > there are violent passages in Islam, and, they are often - not - discarded. Please, go back and read what I’ve actually written. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1297 "2015-10-27T19:00:10Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > I don’t care who he is, I care what he has written. Wow! Imagine if you applied this same standard to Mohammed!!! ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1298 "2015-10-27T19:01:50Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > Yes, and? > > It’s certainly not more violent than Christianity or Judaism. You know, like I’ve said _multiple times already in this very thread._ > > Please, go back and read what I’ve actually written. Oh, so you admit it is violent then? How can it be a religion of peace and be a religion of violence??? ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1299 "2015-10-27T19:04:38Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Wow! > > Imagine if you applied this same standard to Mohammed!!! Muhammad didn’t write anything. > [@Robert163](#): > > Oh, so you admit it is violent then? How can it be a religion of peace and be a religion of violence??? The same way Christianity and Judaism can. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1300 "2015-10-27T19:07:16Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > He basically goes to some lengths to justify the Taliban’s version of Islam as legitimate, and accuse Muslims who reject their interpretation as “apologists” who refuse to acknowledge that the Taliban are scripturally justified (and in fact asserts that Muslims who refuse to accept the “violent” parts of scripture that the Taliban use as justification are basically wrecking their entire religion). They are equally legitimate. If, they use the same Koran as you use. You just admitted Islam is a violent religion. Now it appears as if you are trying to ignore parts of the book again. ---
**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 27, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1301 "2015-10-27T19:09:56Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Well, show me where Mohammed says it is not. Do that and then feel free to lecture and chastise. Until then, perhaps you could keep such rude remarks too yourself. 😕 See posts 719, 741, 745, 752…basically, pages 15-17 of the thread. This was gone over already, at length. If you merely forgot that, rather than maliciously disregarding it so as to preserve an anti-Muslim talking point you knew to be discredited, then I apologize for my harsh tone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=64) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=66)